This dissertation has been mlcroHhned exactly as received 6 7-6372

STOUT, Robert Elliott, 1938- THE SUR-i-HÜMÂYUN OF MURAD HI; A STUDY OF OTTOMAN"FAGEANTRY AND ENTERTAINMENT.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1966 Speech

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ® Copyright by

Robert Elliott Stout

1967 THE SUR-Î-HÎm Ây IJN OF MURAD m

A STUDY OF

OTTOMAN PAGEANTRY AND ENTERTAINME:NT

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Robert Elliott Stout, B. A ., M. A.

******

The Ohio State University 1966

Approved by

^ Adviser Department of Speech ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer would like to express his thanks to the following persons for their assistance:

The director and the staff members of The Ohio State

University Theatre Collection, for the acquisition of microfilm

copies of several documents essential to this study, including the

Surname of Murad HE and the Surname- i-Hümâyun.

Dr. Hayrullah Ors, director of the Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi

in , for his gracious permission to reproduce portions of

the Surname of Murad m .

Miss Andrea Mote and Mr. Wolf Ahrens, of the Department

of German at The Ohio State University, for help in translating

German documents.

Mr. Metin And, of the Department of Drama at Ankara

University, for his valuable suggestions and his encouragement.

11 PREFATORY NOTE

All but a few of the Ottoman terms used in this study, even those of or Persian origin, are here transliterated according to the orthography of modern Turkish. The following approximate pronunciations are given:

C = the J in J am.

Ç = the Oh in Church.

5 lengthens a preceding vowel.

Ô = the ‘Ô in German Koniq.

§ = the Sh in Shall.

Ü = the u in French Tu.

There is also in Turkish an undotted i which is not used in this study because there is no satisfactory way to render it on an

American typewriter.

It will be noted that the Turkish ending 1er or lar generally denotes a plural. A circumflex over a vowel simply lengthens the vowel.

I ll VITA

December 31, 1938 Born - St. Louis, Missouri

1962 ...... B. A ., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1962-196 3...... Research Assistant The Ohio State University Theatre Collection, Columbus, Ohio

1963 ...... M. A ., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1963-196 6...... Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

"Filippo Juvarra: An Introduction, " The Ohio State University Theatre Collection Bulletin. XI, 1964.

FIELDS OF "STUDY

Major Field: Theatre

Studies in History of the Theatre and Criticism. Professor John H. McDowell

Studies in Stage Direction and Modern Theatre Practice. Professor Roy H. Bowen

IV Minor Field: General Speech

Studies in General Communication. Professor Franklin H. Knower

Minor Field: English

Studies in Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Drama. Professor John H. Wilson

Studies in Modern Drama. Professor John C. Morrow

V CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

PREFATORY NOTE...... iii

VITA ...... iv

ILLUSTRATIONS...... ix

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY...... 1

Preliminary Introduction Review of the Literature Objectives of the Study Nature of the Evidence Procedures

n. FESTIVITIES OF OTTOMAN ...... 22

Introduction Aspects of Ottoman Civilization Traditional Popular Festivities Occasions for Official Festivities Nature and Development of Ottoman Festivities

m. THE SUR-Ï-HÜMAYUN OF MURAD IE: THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE FESTIVAL...... 42

Introduction Invitation of Foreign Dignitaries Appointment of Officials Preparation of the Festival Site

VI Chapter Page

IV. THE S Œ -Î-HÜMAYUM OF MURAD HI: SOLEMN CEREMONIES...... ^ ^ 66

Introduction Presentation of Gifts and the Reception of Ambassadors The Public Ceremonials The Imperial Processions Feasts and Banquets

V. THE S m - i - HÜMAYUN OF MURAD HI: POPULAR ENTERTAINMENTS...... 106

Introduction Music and Dance Buffoonery and Farce Puppetry Tumblers and Equilibrists Conjurers Zor-baz Exhibitions Animal Acts

VI. THE SU R -i-HUMAYUN OF MURAD HI: SPECTACULAR ENTERTAINMENTS...... 206

Introdaction Spectacular Devices Pantomimic Spectacles Displays of the Milletler Combats and Mock Battles Fireworks Displays

Vn. TEE SU R -i-HÜMAYUN OF MURAD HI: GUILD PAGEANTRY...... 246

Introduction Pageant Cars md Devices

vu Chapter Page

Vm, THE S m - i- HDMAYnN OF MURAD IE: THE CONCLUSION OF THE FESTIVAL...... 269

The Circumcision of Mehmed The Last Days of the Festivities Concluding Ceremonies

IX. CONCLUSION...... 277

The Theatrical Significance of the Sur- i- Hiimayun of Murad IE Further Research Possibilities

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 287

V lll ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. The M Mevdan as Arranged for the S&?-i-lïSn§,yun of Muradin. Conjectural Plan by Robert Elliott Stout...... 58

2. The M MeycW as Arranged for the Sur- i-Hum ay un of Murad HI. Conjectural Sketch by Robert Elliott Stout...... 62

3. The Imperial Procession. Sultan Murad and Guard. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 1 ...... 75

4. The Imperial Procession. Mehmed Sultan and the Deliler. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 427, 219...... 78

5. The Imperial Procession. Musicians and Entertainers. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 2 1 5 ...... 80

6. The Imperial Procession. The Arrival of Mehmed Sultan at the Palace of Ibrahim Pas a. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 4 ...... 82

7. A Nakil. Reproduced from Rycaut, The History of the Turkish Empire, p. 320...... 85

8. The Tulumcilar and their A^a. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 2 ... . 88

9. An Artificial Garden. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film No. 1625, frame 1 7 1 '. 91

10. A Model of the Mosque of Suleiman. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 88. . 93

ix Figure Page

11. The Presentation of Sugar Animals. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 1 0 ...... 98

12. A Banquet Held on the M Meydan. Surname of Murad HI. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 34 . . . 104

13. Musicians before the Sultan. Surname of Murad HI. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 200...... 115

14. Musicians before the Sultan. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 7 ...... 117

15. Dance Performed by a Cenqi and by a Mevlevi Dervis. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 193...... 120

16. Dance Performed by KScekler. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 414. . . 123

17. Dancer, Musicians and Buffoons. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 421. . . 128

18. Entry of a Troupe of Mimes. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 43, 258 ...... 131

19. Entry of a Group of Buffoons, Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 346 ...... 136

20. Dance of Buffoons. Surname of Murad HI. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 207 ...... 145

21. Farce Performances before the Sultan. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 132...... 149

22. Farce Performance, Surname of Murad HI. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 137 ...... 153 Figure Page

23. Farce Performance. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 351...... 154

24. Portable Puppet Booth and Cenai. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 257. . . 161

25. Portable Puppet Booth, Cenqi and Actor. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 42...... 163

26. Actors Dressed as Puppets. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 76 . . . 171

27. Contortionist Cember-baz. Surname of Murad El. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 35 . . . 177

28. Rope-Walkers. Swname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 94, 363 ...... 180

29. Conjurers and Their Equipment. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 3 1 6 ...... 184

30. Zor-baz Display with Anvil. Swname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 340 ...... 188

31. Snakecharmer and His Equipment. Surname of Murad IE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 49 ...... 193

32. Performing Animals. Surname of Murad EX. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 150...... 194

33. Animal Trainers and Buffoon. Surname of Murad IE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 183. . . 196

34. Performing Cats on a Tightrope. Surname of Murad EX. OSUTEmno. 1625, frame 116 .... 198

35. Dancing Bears. Surname of Murad XE. OSUTC FEm no. 1625, frames 176, 392...... 200

XI Figure Page

36. Fighting Rams. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 326 ...... 202

37. Combat between a Lion and a Boar. -Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 51, 266 ...... 204

38. Attendants Bringing Scenery for a Mock Battle. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 357 ...... 223

39. Attendants Assembling a Mock Castle. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 142 ...... 224

40. A Mock Battle. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 143 ...... 226

41. The Conclusion of a Mock Battle. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 111. . . . 227

42. Fireworks Displays. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 401, 228 ...... 236

43. Fireworks Displays. Surname of Murad HI. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 185 ...... 237

44. Fireworks Displays. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 232...... 239

45. Fireworks Displays. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, 353 ...... 240

46. An Artificial Mountain of Fireworks. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 26 . . 242

47. Guild Pageantry. Tulip Display. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame....98...... 253

48. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Fruit Merchants. Sui/ame of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 293...... 255

X ll Figure ' Page

49. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Butchers. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625 frame 14V...... 25V

50. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Metal-Workers. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625: frame 152...... 258

51. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Potters. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Füm no. 1625 frame 201...... 260

52. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Bath-Keepers. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625 frame 165. 262

53. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Millers. Surname of Murad HI. OSUTC Füm no. 1625 frame 62 ...... 264

54. Guild Pageantry. Display of the Fishermen. S&mame of Murad HL OSUTC Füm no. 1625 frames 65, 281 ...... 266

55. Guüd Pageantry. Display of the Sweepers. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Füm no. 1625 frame 16V...... 26V

xm CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

In the summer of 1582, the Ottoman Sultan Murad HI celebrated the circumcision of his son Mehmed with a magnificent imperial festival (sur-i-humayun) which lasted over fifty days and nights.

The extensive festivities included virtually all the forms of popular entertainment then known to the Ottoman world, as well as elaborate pageantry and scenic spectacle which in several respects rivalled the most splendid festival displays of any of the courts of renais­ sance . This study will undertake to present a detailed analysis of this Ottoman festival, with particular emphasis upon those elements of pageantry and popular entertainment which lent to the festivities a distinctly theatrical character.

Review of the Literature

Scholars in the field of theatre history have, for several decades, shown considerable interest in the court and civic festivi­ ties which played such an important role in the development of 2 theatrical art in Western Ewope during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; this interest reflects not only a recognition of the part played by the renaissance festivities in providing a social and aesthetic context for dramatic performances and scenic design, but also a widening of the field of theatre history to include pageantry and other festival entertainments as legitimate subjects for study as theatrical phenomena.

Whereas the court festivities of Christian Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have received considerable study from theatre historians, attention has only recently begun to be focussed upon the festivities as a matrix for the various forms of theatrical activity which developed in Ottoman

Turkey during the same period. References to the Ottoman - festivities in scholarly literature are quite few and scattered, and, moreover, prior to the publication, in 1959, of Kirk Gun Kirk Gece

(Forty Days. Forty Nights), by the Turkish theatre critic and scholar, Metin And, ^ these few references are generally devoid of theatrical interest or emphasis.

iMetin And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece (Istanbul; Tag Yayinlari, 1959). 3

Some histories of the , such as that of

Danismend, ^ and notably that of von Hammer, 3 contain detailed accounts of some of the more historically significant of the festivals, and Stern's interesting study of Turkish sexual practices contains a valuable discussion of the court wedding and circumcision cere­ monies. 4 A number of works which treat of Ottoman civilization in general include passing references to the festivities, 3 as do a few works dealing with Turkish miniature , 6 and

Babinger's study of Ottoman historiography provides a good deal of bibliographical information concerning the various surnameler.

^Ismail Hami Daniçmend, Izahli Osmanli Tarihi Kronoloiisi (Istanbul: Turkiye Yayinevi Tarih Serisi, 1961), HE 58-60.

Joseph de Hammer, L'Histoire de L'Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine iusqu'aNos Jours (Paris: Bellizard, Barthes, DuEour et LoweU, 1834), I, 271-72; V, 137-45; VH, 143-63, et passim.

'^Bernhard Stern, Medizin. Aberglaube un Geschlechtsleben in der Turkei (Berlin: Verlag von H. Barsdorff, 1903), H, 361-76.

%ee Alexander Pallis, M the Pays of (London: Hutchinson and Company, Ltd., 1951).

%uch as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Turkish Miniatures (New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1965). 4

or Ottoman festival-books. ? Aside from these scattered sources which attend to matters of pageantry and entertainment only inci­

dentally, and besides a handful of historical articles in various

Turkish periodicals--such as the introductory sketch of the subject by the folklorist Tecer, 8 and the somewhat more specialized

enquiry by XJluçay9--the entire body of published research on the

Ottoman festivities is the work of the aforementioned Mr. Metin

And, who has pioneered in the study of Ottoman festivals as theatrical phenomena.

Although a limited amount of information on the theatrical

aspects of the Ottoman festivities is included in two recent works by

Metin And which have been published in Englishand in Italian,

and which are thus accessible to a considerable international

7Franz Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und Ihre Werke (Leipzig; Otto Harrassowitz, 1927), pp. 110, 127-33, et passim.

^Ahmed Kutsi Tecer, "Alay, Çenlik, D%$un, " Istanbul, m , No. 3 (May, 1955), 17-29.

^Cagatay Blue ay, "Istanbul 'daXVni ve XIX Asirlarda Sultanlarin Do^’umlarinda Yapilan Tbrenler ve genliklere Dair, " Istanbul Enstitusu Mecmuasi. IV (1958), 205-11.

l*^Metin And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey (Ankara: Forum Yayinlari, 1963-1964), pp. 17-22, et passim.

^^Metin And, "Turchia. " Enciclopedia dello Spettacolo. Vol. IX (1962), cols. 1167-1179. 5 readership, his Kirk Giin Kirk Gece. the only work approaching a comprehensive survey of the subject, is written in Turkish--a language little known outside of Turkey and certain parts of the

Soviet Union.

Kirk Gm Kirk Gece is unique in several respects: first of all, as previously indicated, it treats the Ottoman festivities per se as theatrical-phenomena—as vast shows designed for the entertainment of an audience; secondly, it discusses dramatic activity, such as the popular farces and puppet-shows, in the larger context of the great festivals, a procedure eschewed by most previous writers on the Turkish theatre, such as

Martinovitch, 12 who generally limit their enquiries to the three predominant dramatic forms of (histrionic story-teller),

Karaqoz (shadow-theatre). and Orta Ovunu (popular farce), to the neglect of the pageantry and other entertainments which amused the huge festival audiences; and, thirdly, it makes use of the abundant pictorial evidence from the illustrated surnameler

(festival-books) and other court albums fr'om the Topkapi Sarayi

Library m Istanbul. Of particular value, also, is the extensive bibliography of original sources, both Turkish and Western,

l^Nicholas N. Martinovitch, The Turkish Theatre (New York: Theatre Arts, Inc., 1933). included in Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. This nearly exhaustive listing has been further supplemented by And in a series of brief articles published in the Ankara periodical Forum. 13 and these provide an

almost indispensable basis and guide for any further research on the Ottoman festivities.

With all respect to the nature of And's accomplishments, however, it should be noted that the study beyond the initial stages; not only has the bulk of And's research been denied to the general readership in the field of theatrical history because of the obvious language difficul ' f, but Kirk Gun Kirk Gece itself stands as a rather general overview which surveys almost four hundred years of Ottoman festival activity in just over one hundred pages of text.

It may be regarded as an initial introduction to a very broad area

of inquiry, and as a starting-point for further, more specialized research.

Objectives of the Study

This study is intended to fill certain definite needs implied by

the above review of the existing literature on the Ottoman festivities.

In general, this study will undertake to provide an initial introduction

13see Metin And, "Eski Osmanli §enlM eri Uzerine Ûç italyan Kaynal^i, " Forum. XIV, No. 184 (December 1, 1961), 14-16. See also infra,, pp. lln, 17n. 7 to the subject of Ottoman pageantry and festival entertainments, and yet, at the same time, carry the progress of research in this field beyond the level established by Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. This study will attempt to achieve its dual purpose by presenting a detailed explication of a single representative Ottoman festival, the sûr-i-hümayun of Murad IE. This particular festival, which was quite probably the most splendid and lengthy in the history of the Ottoman empire, will serve not only as a microcosm of the world of Ottoman pageantry and popular entertainment—thus introducing the reader to a variety of traditional festival enter­ tainments which did not appreciably change in character over the four hundred years or so during which they flourished—but also as a subject for research more detailed and specialized than the previous macrocosmic surveys of the field.

Inasmuch as this study is intended to be a contribution to the field of theatre history, the main interest and emphasis will be laid upon those aspects of the festivities which were clearly designed

as shows and amusements for the entertainment of the assembled

audience; yet, in order to delineate the festival context within which the entertainments took place, and in order not to exclude certain

ceremonial observances and other practices of a quasi-theatrical

14cf. Von Hammer, VH, 146. 8 character, this study will provide a comprehensive view of the entire sur-i-li&nayun of Murad IE. Through an explanation of the great festival in all its aspects, prefaced by a chapter indicating the place of the festivities in Ottoman tradition and civilization, this study aims for a clear explication of all that which constituted the theatre of Ottoman Turkey. It is an attempt to provide a panoramic view of the pageantry and popular entertainment of the

Ottoman empire by means of a thorough, detailed study of a single festival.

Nature of the Evidence

The extent and variety of the original sources which have been assembled as evidence for this study will permit a reconstruc­ tion of the significant events of the sw -i-humÈvun which, it is hoped, will be both accurate and vivid, providing the reader not only a picture of what the entertainments within the great festival consisted of, but also a view of the festival m tote as an expression

of Ottoman culture. Evidence has been brought together for this

project which is both textual and pictorial, and both of western and

Turkish origin. It is hoped that the collation of a number of

independent accounts of the festival by separate observers will

insure rich detail as well as accuracy of description, and that the

combination of textual description with pictorial evidence will make 9 vivid and comprehensible what might at first strike the reader as an exotic, even bizarre, panoply of entertainments, pageants, and ceremonies.

The s w - i-hiimayun of Murad m was a splendid event for the members of the Ottoman court and for the populace of Istanbul and its environs; but the festivities were also attended by an extra- orinarily large number of foreign ambassadors, both from the

Christian west and the Muslim east. The various accounts of the festival which have come down to us originate from the imperial

Ottoman court in the form of official and commemorative documents, and also from a number of the western European visitors to the spectacular proceedings, who set down detailed descriptions for publication back in Christendom.

The court documents were not published and are the products of scribes, historiographers, and artists attached to the court of

Murad HE. The most important of these by far is the magnificent m Murat Sftrnamesi (festival-book of Murad ED which contains a textual account of the festival by the Ottoman court historiographer,

Lokman B. Huseyn Al-'Ashuri, 15 and some 430 miniature

l^ h is text is nearly identical to that of the 8urname-i- Humayun (Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, No. 1019). OSUTC Film no. 1625. 10 by the court painter, Osman. Although Lokman's text may leave something to be desired as far as specific description of events is concerned, the paintings by Osman are invaluable for their vivid pictorial record of most of the significant aspects of the fifty days and nights of the festival.

Over fifty of Osman's miniatures will be used as illustrations for this study. They are reproduced from a microfilm copy of the original Surname housed in the Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi in Istanbul.

The microfilm copy was acquired in 1964 by the Ohio State University

Theatre Collection, and has been catalogued as Füm no. 1625 in that collection. The order of the miniatures on the microfilm reel is quite different from that of the original festival-book, and the illustrations in this study are identified and located according to the frame number of the microfilm reel in the Ohio State University

Theatre Collection, and not according to their original order.

l^Lokman B. Huseyn Al-'Ashuri, HE Murat Surnamesi (Istanbul, ca. 1583). Topkapi Sarayi Kitapli^i, No. 1344. This, the earliest of the Ottoman s&nameler, is also referred to as the in Murat Albumii. and elsewhere in this study is called the Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Füm no. 1625.

17". . . the text is overloaded with poems and proverbs which are not always to the point. " United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Association, Turkey; Ancient Miniatures. Introduction by M. S. ipçtroÇlu and S. Eyubo^lu (New York; The New York Graphic Society, 1961), p. 24. 11

The other Turkish documents which have been used for this study include a lengthy, poetical account of the festival by

Gelibolulu All, Camiul-Hubur der M ecalis-i Sur (a fanciful title which can be roughly translated as A Collection of Beauties con­ cerning the Description of the Festival of Circumcision) 18 which, like the textual account by Lokman, was intended as a semi-official, commemorative court record of an illustrious event of the reign of

Murad m. More humble are the remaining palace documents which pertain to the sur-i-humavun of Murad HI: these consist of brief memoranda-sheets containing lists of performing companies and artists, gifts presented to the sultan, and expense records. 19

Other references to the sur-i-humayun are said to be found in some of the more general works of Ottoman historiography, such as the

Künhû'l Ahbar of Ali, 20 b^t these scattered and incidental references have not been located for the present study, nor have any non-Turkish oriental (i. e . , Persian or Tatar) sources been

ISMustafa B. Ahmed (Gelibolulu Ali), CamiuL-Hubur der Mecalis-i-Sur (Istanbul, ca. 1583). Topkapi Sarayi Ba^dat KGÿil, No. 203.“

l^Topkapi Sarayi Arçivi, Nos. D. 9715, D. 10015, and D. 10022. See And, Kirk Giin Kirk Gece. p. 197, for reproduc­ tions of these documents.

20see Metin And, "Gene 1582 §enli§i Üzerine, " Forum. Xm, No. 168 (April 1, 1961), 26. 12 discovered which contain references to the snr-i-hiimavim. The

Ottoman sources which have been used for this study pertain specifically to the festival itself, with the exception of a later illustrated surname, the 8urname-i-Vehbi (Vehbi's Festival-

Book). and the Sevahatname (Travel-book) of Evliya Çelebi, a monumental work which is all but indispensable for the study of the Ottoman guilds and festivities of the seventeenth century. These last two Ottoman documents provide excellent background information for this study, as does also the little

Ottoman miniature-album published by Taeschner, 23 and the

2l8eyyid Huseyn Vehbi, Surname-i-Vehbl (Istanbul, ca, 1720), Topkapi Sarayi Kitapli^i, No. 3593.

22Evliya Çelebi, A Narrative of Travels in Europe. Asia and Africa, Translated from the Turkish by Joseph von Hammer. (London: The Oriental Translation Fund, 1834-1850). This source contains a very lengthy description of a festival in Istanbul in 1638, and is particularly valuable for its account of the various guilds of entertainers.

23rhe album dates from about 1650. Franz Taescher, Alt-Stambuler Hof- und-Volksleben: Ein Turkisches Miniatur- enalbum aus den 17. Jahrhundert (Hannover: Orient-Buch- handlung Heinz LeFaire, 1925). 13 several other miniatures from various Ottoman albums published by Metin And. 24

Of particular value for this study is the evidence from a number of detailed accounts of the sur-i-humayun of Murad m which were set down by various western visitors to the festival.

Although it is obvious that most of these Christian writers did not understand the significance of all that they witnessed, especially in the area of religious ceremonials, the accounts which they have left are invaluable for their detailed descriptions of specific occurrences, and in this respect they are generally more helpful than the Ottoman texts, which often take for granted a familiarity with Ottoman culture which has now been lost even to educated

Turks. The western texts, taken together with the miniatures from the Simname of Murad EE, permit a vivid and specific

24no complete bibliography of the various Ottoman festival- books (sftrnameler) has been compiled, but see And, Kirk Giin Kirk Gece-. and Babinger. Copies of a number of these manuscripts have found their way to libraries in Cairo, Vienna, Paris and London, as weU as in several Istanbul collections. Evidently, the only illustrated surnameler are the HE Murat Surnamesi and the 8urname-i-Vehbi. both at the Topkapi Sarayi in Istanbul, but there are a few other Ottoman albums in the Topkapi collection which contain pictures of festivities and entertainments, notably the Hunemame (Book of Exploits) of Lokman, and the Album of . The Hmername contains some miniatures by Osman which pertain to the sur-i-humayun of Murad EE; see And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkev. figs. 4, 5. 14 reconstruction of many of the details of the festivities which would be impossible with the Ottoman texts alone.

The longest, most detailed, and authoritative of the western accounts is that of von Hauholth, who was a nobleman from

Breslau who was evidently attached to the entourage of the ambassador of the German emperor. It seems probable that he, unlike some of the other western writers who left accounts of the festival, had spent some years in Istanbul; he writes knowledgeably of the complex palace and religious institutions, and his account is laced with Turkish terms. His description of the festival, which evidently formed the basis for a shorter version published

25por an example of this situation, see infra. , pp. 156ff.

2%icholas von Haunolth, Particular Verzeichnuzs mit was Ceremonien Geprang unnd Pracht das Fest der Beschneidung dezs ietzt recrierenden Tffrckischen Kevsers Sultan Murath disz namens dezs dritten u. Sohns Sultan Mehemet aennant welches von andem Junii bizs auf den 21. Julii dezs 1582. Jahrs aewehret unnd continuiert hat zu Constantinopel celebriert und gehalten worden. Published in Johannes Lewenklaw, Neuwe Cronica Tilrckischer Nation (Franckfurt am Mayn: Andrew Wechels and Johan Aubri, 1590), pp. 468-515. 15 anonymously in 1583, is crucial for this study because it is the only account which goes into some detail about the various types of dramatic performances at the festival.PR Haunolth’s account, upon which, incidentally, von Hammer based his description of the sur-i-humayun, is, aside from Osman's paintings, the most important source of information for this study.

Another ostensibly German source is the so-called Fugger news-letter, evidently sent from Istanbul in 1582 by an unknown correspondent to the house of Fugger.This brief but useful account bears a certain similarity to an anonymous French account

^^Particular Beschreybuncf der Ordnuncf und Herrlichkeyt so in dem Fest der Beschnevdung des Sultan Machmet yetzicren Tiirckischen Kavsers Sultan Amuraths Son zu Constantinopel im 1582. Jar ist gehalten den andern Junii anqefanqen und den 26. Julii vollende worden (Auqsburcr: Michael Manger, 1582). It is remotely possible that this account, which is less than half as long as the Haunolth description, could be the work of someone who viewed the festival from much the same vantage-point as von Haunolth, but the similarities are such that the two could be versions of the same original MS.

^^See infra. . pp. 131-66.

^^Hammer, Vn, 145-63. Hammer listed the Surname-i- Humayun as his source for this account, but he evidently made little actual use of it.

Translated by Pauline de Chary and published in Victor von Klarwill, The Fugger News-Letters . . . during the Years 1568-1605 (New York; G. P . Putnam’s Sons, 1925), pp. 63-72. 16 published in Paris in 1583;^^ since the French version is longer and more detailed, it is possible that the Fugger version derived from the French source.

Two other French sources are considerably more helpful than the anonymous Discours; the first of these is included in

Blaise de Vigenere’s lengthy addendum to his translation of

Chalkokondyles.^^ Though one cannot be sure that Blaise de

Vigenere himself was the original author of this account, it is nonetheless evident that his description is based on an independent, original source. Another, particularly full account of the festival is the work of a French traveler to the Levant, Jean Palerne,

^^Discours des Triomphes. Magnificences, et Allegresses gui ont este faictes a la Circoncision du Sultan Mehemet Fils du Sultan Amurath. Grand Empereur des Turcs (Paris: Jean Patrasson, 1583).

^^Menestrier’s account seems to be based almost entirely on a version of this description, perhaps by way of the French writer, Mezerey. Claude Francois Menestrier, Traité des Tournois. Joustes. Carrousels et Autres Spectacles Publics (Lvon; Jacques Muguet, 1669), pp. 307-24.

^^Blaise de Vigenere, Les Illustrations de Blaise de Vigenere . . . Published in Laonicus Chalkokondyles, L'Histoire de la Decadence de L'Empire Grec et Establissement de Celuv des Turcs (Paris: Claude Sonnius, 1632), pp. 279-89._ . 17 published in his Perecrrinations in 1606. 34 This account, especially useful for its description of the ceremonies and receptions of ambassadors, forms the basis for the chapter on the sur-i-hümâvun of Murad m which the French historian Baudier first published in

1618. 35

Although none of the Italian visitors to the festival seems to have published an account, there is a letter, dated 21 July, 1582, which was written in Italian by one Le Vigne de Fera and sent to the British court; an English translation of this has been published. 36

A final source which also appears in an English translation was originally set down by a member of the Polish delegation to the festival, George Lebelski, and was published in London in

34jean Palerne, Perecrrinations de S. Jean Palerne. Foresien. Secretaire de Francois de Valois Due d'Aniou. & d'Alencon. Ensemble m bref discours des Triomphes et Magnificences faictes a en la Solennité de la circoncision de Mahomet Fils de Sultan Amurath m de ce nom Empereur des Turcs (Lyon; Jean Pillehotte, 1606), pp. 442-88.

35see Michel Baudier, The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand Seigneurs (London; Richard Meighan, 1635), pp. 76-92.

36Qreat Britain Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers. Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth (London: Mackie and Co., Ltd., 1909), May-December, 1582, pp. 170-78. 18

1585. This is a very lengthy and detailed source, probably the second most important western source, after that of von Haunolth, insofar as vivid description is concerned.

Although the list of western sources assembled for this study is not absolutely complete, it is nearly so, 38 and there is an abundance of data from at least six completely independent wit­ nesses. This wealth of material, together with the Ottoman documents, certainly makes the sur-i-hümavun of Murad m one of the most well-documented festivals, oriental or western, of its period; it is surely as fully documented as any theatrical event of the sixteenth century, and this documentation should permit an explication of the festival which is complete and reliable.

SVGeorge Lebelski, A True Description of the Maonlficall Trvumphes and Pastimes, represented at Constantinople at the Solemni7.inq of the Circumcision of the Soldan Mauhmet the sonne of Amurathe. the thvrd of that name, in the Yeare of our Lor de God 1582. in ^ Monthes of Male and June. Published in Fr ancois de Billerbeg, Most Rare and Strange Discourses of Amurathe. the Turkish Emperor that now is (London; for Thomas Hackett, 1585). (No pagination. ) For notes on this account, see Metin And, "1582 §enligi Üzerine Ünemli Bir Belge, " Forum. XIEE, No. 166 (March 1, 1961), 22.

38rhere is evidently a brief German MS account in the Berlin staatsbibliothek; see Babinger, p. llOn. 19

Procedures

The organizational and descriptive procedures employed for this study are designed to produce a treatment of the great festival which is coherent and orderly, but which can also communicate a sense of the tumultous disorder which often characterized the proceedings. Moreover, a general principle of selectivity and economy will be observed with regard to the abundant textual and pictorial source materials at hand, lest the discussion become diffuse and prolix. One intent of the study wiU be to make the reader an informed observer of the most significant and important aspects of the festival, particularly those elements of a theatrical character. These aspects will be discussed and explained in some detail, but always the attempt will be made to let a representative sampling suffice for the whole—it will not be necessary, for example, to reproduce pictures of each and every one of the eighty pageant cars depicted in the Surname of Murad HE to give the reader a clear understanding of the nature and significance of the parade of the guilds. It is hoped, however, that this procedure will not lead to oversimplification.

The actual events which took place before the eyes of the several thousand spectators at the festival will be here discussed

according to the general categories of solemn ceremonies, popular 2 0 entertainments, spectacular entertainments, and guild pageantry.

It will be apparent that not only the sequential order of these categories, but the categories themselves are somewhat arbitrary.

Most of the western accounts of the festival discuss the proceedings on a day-by-day basis and reveal that, often, no particular order at all could be discerned, especially with regard to the minor popular entertainments. It must be stressed, then, that the organization of this study reflects not so much the ordered structure of the festival itself, but simply an attempt to produce a coherent discussion of its salient features. As for the planned order of events which did prevail during the festivities, this will be referred to at various points in the discussion.

In order to insure that the festival be perceived as a total entity in itself, the discussion of its parts will be prefaced by a chapter devoted to the preparations for the festival, and followed by a chapter describing the conclusion of the festivities. These

chapters will also bring forward information concerning the

specific historical and political context of the festival. Also,

inasmuch as this study is addressed primarily to students of theatre history who may not necessarily possess a knowledge of

Ottoman civilization, a chapter devoted to a general discussion of

the festivities of Ottoman Turkey and their place in Ottoman 21 culture will precede the discussion of the sur-i-hümwun itself.

Also, an attempt will be made to translate or otherwise explain each of the Turkish terms which must, of necessity, be included in this study.

The descriptive procedures used in this study will vary somewhat, according to the specific object or activity under discussion and according to the kinds of evidence available, but generally there will be an attempt to use pictorial and textual evidence in combination, where possible, as well as a tendency to use direct quotations from the original sources. Very often the conjunction of original source picture with original source text will provide a description which is vivid and nearly self-explanatory.

Although there are a few significant features of the festival for which, unfortunately, no picture exists, there will otherwise be a consistent reliance upon iconographieal evidence for this study—not simply because of the availability of the surname paintings, but also because this procedure is appropriate to describe a festival which depended so much on visual excitement as a source of entertainment. CHAPTER n

FESTIVITIES OF OTTOMAN TURKEY

Introduction

It is generally understood that the festivities of any given culture are in various ways reflections of the values and traditions of that culture, and this is certainly true of the festivities of

Ottoman Turkey. An Ottoman court festival like the sur-i-hüm&,yun of Murad m is not only a microcosm of Ottoman pageantry and entertainment, it is also the distinct product of the manifold characteristics which comprised Ottoman civilization. Many of these aspects of the Ottoman ethos will be discussed at various points in this study, in connection with aspects of the Ottoman festivities; but it is perhaps wise to preface a survey of the festivities with a few general, introductory remarks on aspects of

Ottoman civilization. It will be noted that these remarks represent only the most cursory glance at what was an extremely intricate culture, but it is hoped that the brief sketch will be of some use as adumbrative background.

22 - 28

Aspects of Ottoman Civilization

Ottoman civilization may be said to have been the product of a large number of disparate influences and traditions. Bursting in to take power in the Middle East during the decline of the Arab

Caliphate and the , the Turks fell heir to a myriad of political, religious, social, and cultural traditions. As the Selcuks, and later the Ottomans, conquered more and more territory and subject peoples, more were the influences to which these Turks themselves became subject. Though they were always most obviously stamped by the influence of

—Arabic and Persian—the Ottomans can also be seen as having received strong Byzantine and some western European influences.

One senses in Ottoman society a full measure of the bewildering heterogeneity long a characteristic of parts of the Middle East, yet a number of well-established Ottoman institutions served to provide a degree of cultural cohesiveness.

The Ottomans' far-flung empire, of course, embraced diverse multitudes, but even in Istanbul, there was much ethnic heterogeneity, and it cannot be said that Ottoman civilization was

"Turkish" in the modern, nationalistic sense. Not only did parts of the population belong to the various minorities which were tolerated under the system—among these , 24

Armenians, and Jews—but even the members and leaders of the

Ottoman military and civil services were often of non-Turkish origin, converts to who had been brought to Istanbul for training at an early age. ^ There were also a number of

"renegados" from Christian Europe in the Sultan's service. A significant group of foreigners in the Imperial household was to be found in the ; one of the most influential powers behind the of Murad m was his wife Safiye, a Venetian. ^

Allegiance to the powerful ruling institution bound together most of the subjects of diverse origin. Although there was during much of the history of the Ottoman empire a modicum of democracy for even the most ordinary citizens, the ruling power of the empire was based upon military force and a not-always enlightened despotism. Power theoretically remained absolute in the hands of the Sultan, to whom all subjects were expected to pay homage, but the frequently found themselves at the mercy of the military, especially the famous janissaries, whose role has often been compared to that of the Praetorians. The Ottoman

Iprior to about 1650, Orthodox Christian youths were enrolled for Ottoman service under a special system known as the devsirme.

2See H. A. R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West CLondon; Oxford University Press, 1950% I, Pt. I, 73-77. 25 military was nearly as complex an institution as the court itself, and sometimes fraught with as many internal rivalries. Matters of internal strife aside, however, one must recognize the tremendous importance of military affairs in Ottoman civilization. Military prowess was the Ottoman virtue par excellence, and the Ottoman forces' bloodthirsty zeal as "defenders of the Faith" was a great source of national pride.

The faith so staunchly defended by the Ottoman armies was, of course, Islam. Ottoman rule was highly theocratic, and while the Sultan never took the title of Caliph, his office was the "Abode of the , " and he was the supreme defender of the faith.

Conjoined with the ruling institution was a complex religious institution headed by the Grand Mufti, or Sevk-al-Islam. This official establishment of the Sunnite sect of Islam was highly organized and held great power through the Seri'a. or sacred law.

Operating below, or apart from, the official religious institution were the many Sufi or Dervis sects; these were Muslim and exceptionally devout, but often quite unorthodox in belief and in religious observance. The mysticism of the various Dervis orders was often embodied in bizarre and even repellent practices. 26 but many of the sects were quite respectable and enjoyed great favor from the authorities. ^

These minor religious sects were in turn connected to the various confraternities (Ahiler) and the trade guilds (esnaf) which in many ways formed the backbone of the social order among the merchant and laboring classes in the urban centers of the Ottoman empire. This corporation system became an important part of the

Ottoman social structure after the in 1453,

and by 1650 there were nearly a thousand guilds in the environs of

Istanbul. These guilds included not only merchants and artisans, but even the most humble and peripheral citizens. There were guilds of prostitutes, beggars, and pickpockets. ^ Of particular interest for this study are the guilds of entertainers, described in

Evliya's famous catalogue of the guilds of Istanbul. 5

The Ottoman empire, particularly at the height of its wealth

and power under , was of enormous

geographical extent, and when one speaks of Ottoman civilization

as reflected in the festivities, one refers not so much to the

empire's far-flung dominions as to the life of its capital, Istanbul.

%bid. , I, Pt. n, 195.

%bid., I, Pt. I, 290n.

E vliya Çelebi, pp. 104-251. 2 7

In what had been the capital of the Byzantine empire were located the ruling and religious institutions. With its splendid palaces and mosques, its schools and commercial centers, and with the

imperial court, Istanbul was the home of Ottoman civilization.

Here, and in nearby , the Sultans celebrated the joyous events of their reigns with extravagant festivities.

Traditional Popular Festivities

The great imperial festivals of which the sur-i-hümavun of

Murad m was a splendid example were official public rejoicings

( senlM er) which were sponsored by the court, occasions for the

court and the populace to engage in mutual celebration. The court

had its own private entertainments and ceremonials, of course, but

there were also a number of religious feast and holy days which

were occasions for popular merriment, such as Maulid, the

birthday of the prophet, and the two Bavram festivals. These

occasions for popular holiday spirit occurred regularly each year

according to the Muslim lunar calendar, 6 and were rarely the

6See G. E. von Grunebaum, Muhammadan Festivals (New York: Henry Schumann, 1951), where the important religious festivals of Islam are discussed, including those of the Si'ites. Maulid is also referred to as Kurban Bavrami. 28 lavish affairs the official senlMer were. ? Other occasions for popular rejoicing were weddings and circumcisions. The feasts

attendant upon these events were called snr, the wedding of a girl being celebrated with a sur-i-cihaz and the circumcision of a boy with a sur-i-hatan. In Islam, the wedding-feast was in honour of the bride, since the husband had already celebrated his feast at the time of his circumcision, which operation was usually performed

about the age of puberty. The festivities for both marriage and circumcision were considered as compensation for the suffering endured. 8 The ceremony of circumcision had special significance, since it was considered a "wedding of the soul, " and thus more

important than matrimony. 9 Sur festivals were no doubt relatively modest among the lower classes, but depending on the means at hand were generally celebrated with as much extravagance as

possible, and professional entertainers were frequently engaged.

7ln and the , peasant holidays of pagan origin were celebrated in Ottoman times and some of these involved folk-dramas. A few such rituals still go on today. See And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkev. pp. 53-62.

%ee A. D. Alderson, The Structure of ^ Ottoman (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1956), p. 104.

^von Hammer, I, 271.

lOEvliya, pp. 240-41. 29

The public feast days of Maulid and the two Bayramlar^^

and the private celebrations of births, weddings, and circumcisions were by no means the only traditional popular festivities in Ottoman

Turkey, but these were the most important festivals among the

Muslim population in general. There were, in addition, minor festivities and holidays of various kinds, some applying to the

populace in general, such as new year celebrations, and others which were celebrated only by certain sects or dervis orders. ^2

Also, the several non-Muslim milletler had their own religious

and national festivals which they were permitted to observe.

Whereas the traditional popular festivities of the Muslim majority were thoroughly Islamic in inspiration and character, the official

festivities sponsored by the court permitted the participation of

the non-Muslim subjects of the Sultan.

l ^Eücûk Bavram. or "little festival^' came at the end of Rain a.7an, the Muslim month of fasting, and lasted several days; the other Bavram. Büvûk Bavram. or "great festival, " was, despite its name, the lesser of the two in importance. •

l^The Sl'ite sect of Islam celebrated in the month of Muharram a solemn festival of lamentation which became the basis for the only tragic drama native to an Islamic people, the Ta'ziva. or passion play. See Aleksander Chodzko, I^ Theatre Persan (Paris: Ernst LeRoux, Editeur, 1878). The Persians are generally Sî'ites. as are the Turks of Azerbaijan. 30

Occasions for Official Festivities

If weddings and circumcisions were traditionally the most joyous of private occasions among the Muslim populace at large, court weddings and circumcisions were occasions for public rejoicing

(senlik, or veladet-i-hümayun) on a grand scale. An imperial festival (sur-i-hümâyun) was the occasion for the Sultan to feast and entertain his subjects, and for him to receive the homage and good-will of all his people. These occasions gave the court an opportunity for a pompous display of wealth and power, and were full of solemn, formal ceremony which in various ways symbolized the interrelationship of all the diverse elements of Ottoman society.

SenlMer provided opportunities when the court and the populace, usually so remote, could engage in mutual sharing of holiday spirit.

The atmosphere created instilled a sense of community for both commoners and noblemen.

Yet weddings and circumcisions were by no means the only

occasions for public rejoicings. Certain occasions of a semi-

sacramental character were endowed with official ceremony and

celebration, quite often involving a solemn procession, or alav.

Some of these were usual, such as the solemn procession of the

Sultan to attend religious services at the mosque, or annual, such

as the Surre-Aiav, in which the Sultan sent a caravan of gifts to 31 Mekka, led by the royal emissary to the holy city, the Emir-i-Hac or "lord of the pilgrimage. "13 a particularly important ceremonial occasion was the Ottoman equivalent of the , in which the

Sultan was "girded with the of Osman. " Royal funerals were ceremonial events, but these were relatively modest in scope, and the extent of public mourning attendant upon a royal funeral not as great as the rejoicing for royal weddings, circumcisions, or births. 1^

Festivities and illuminations were invariably connected with major Ottoman military victories, often welcoming back the victorious troops or fleet. 15 in the early days when the Sultans personally led the army to battle, these celebrations took the form of the triumphal entry. Entries as well as departures of the

Sultans were in the form of elaborate parades. 1®

l^Alderson, p. 126.

l^Ibid., pp. 101-06. Also see ULucay.

15a special was erected on the for the Sultan to review naval exercises and other aquatic displays. See And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. pp. 24-25.

l®The parade (alav) of the guilds described by Evliya was to celebrate the departure of Sultan Murad IV for in 1638. Evliya, pp. 104-251. Murad's triumphal return from this vic­ torious expedition, joyously celebrated, was the last time an Ottoman sultan entered Istanbul at the head of a victorious army which he had personally commanded in battle. See Edward S. Creasy. History of the (Beirut; Khayats, 1961), pp. 254-56. 32

What with the regularly occurring Bayram feasts, Maulid. and the entertainments of the nights of Ramazan. plus one or more official rejoicings per year, the Ottoman populace did not lack festivity. Sometimes, the official senlikler would be scheduled to take place at the same, time as one of the bayramlar. thus creating a double festival. 18 At other times, when public demand for a festival was acute, the court would create a pretext to sponsor a senlik. On at least one occasion, an infant marriage was arranged by the court simply to create the need for a sur-i- humavun. 1^ and during the reign of Ahmet IE, a new occasion for rejoicing was established, the Tulip festival. 20 it seems evident that, in general, the populace expected one or more official festivals per year as a matter of right, though as much impetus for festivities came from the court itself on many occasions.

l^Fasting was demanded during the 28 days of Ramazan but the nights were given up to festivity and entertainment.

l^Alderson, p. 103.

IQibid.. p. 99.

20see And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 17. 33

Nature and Development of Ottoman Festivities

The official festivities of the Ottoman court flourished in

Istanbul and Edirne (Adrianople) primarily, but the tradition of

Ottoman court festivals had begun even before the Turks had taken

Constantinople in 1453. To a large extent, the Ottomans had simply continued a very old tradition of imperial pomp which even antedated the Roman empire in the Middle East. Such a festival tradition as that of the triumphal entry, for example, which the

Renaissance princes of Italy and France had emulated as a characteristically Roman institution, was probably already old when the Persian Cyrus made his entry into Babylon in the sixth century B. C. Even after the Islamic conquest of most of what had been the Persian and Roman empires, certain traditions of festivity and entertainment continued to be enjoyed by the

Byzantine emperors, the Arab Caliphs, the Mongol Khans, and the Emirs and Sultans of the Turks. As one views the elements of these great court festivals as they appeared in the Ottoman capital even up to the middle of the nineteenth century, it is difficult to avoid the supposition that to a certain extent these shows were descended from those of the Roman circuses and amphitheatres, not so much through conscious, renaissance revival and imitation, but via some meandering but unbroken line 34 of tradition. In the Ottoman festivals, within an Islamic framework, one cannot help but perceive the remains of the spectacular enter­ tainments of Imperial Rome: the sports of the circus, the hunts and combats of the amphitheatre, the acclamatio of the emperor presiding, the mimes and pantomimes. 21

The degree to which the Ottoman festival entertainments actually were directly descended from those of Roman times has not been precisely determined, for lack of much research or definite evidence, and in any case such a determination is not the task of this study. Some elements of the Ottoman festivities after the taking of Constantinople by Mehmet the conqueror were quite possibly influenced by the festival practices of Renaissance

Europe, and indeed it is known that some of the fireworks and

other spectacular devices were designed by renegades from

Europe. 22 Qn the other hand, it is certain that many of the

forms of festivity and entertainment which were manifested at

the Ottoman senlikler were possessed by the Ottomans and their

Oriental predecessors well before the beginning of the renaissance

21 An English visitor to an Ottoman festival in Istanbul in 1836 was told that the entertainments which she witnessed were exactly those of ancient Rome, unchanged in over fifteen centuries. See Julia Par doe. The City of the Sultan (London: Henry Colburn, 1837), n, 460-77.

22see infra. , p. 230. 35 festival tradition in the West. The survival of various forms of

Roman entertainment in the Byzantine empire is well established,

and the Kiev frescos of the tenth century show mimes and acrobats whose costumes and postures are very similar to those of the

Ottoman entertainers of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth

centuries, 23 The Byzantine sports and games in the Hippodrome

carried on a tradition of spectacular entertainment which the

Ottomans took over, using the very hippodrome which had housed the great shows of the Eastern Roman empire one thousand years

earlier.

The precursors of the Ottoman festival entertainments in

the Middle East were, as indicated previously, Islamic as well

as Byzantine. There were festivities with performances by

masked actors at Baghdad during the ninth century, 24 and mime

performances at the Selcuk court in 1116. 25 The first Maulid

festival, according to Sunni tradition, was a splendid affair held

in 1207. A contemporary account by the historian Ibn Khallikan

2%ee Allardyce Nicoll, Masks. Mimes, and Miracles (London: George G. Harrap & Company Limited, 1931), p. 159, for a reproduction of the Kiev frescos.

24orunebaum, p. 54.

25And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkev. p. 10. 36 reveals many similarities between this festival, held in Upper

Mesapotamia, 26 and the snr-i-hnmavm of Murad HI: a hippodrome surrounded by multi-storied pavilions, religious procession, musical and dramatic performances, parades before the prince, 27 and nocturnal illuminations. It would seem that Ottoman festival practices, like Ottoman culture in general, represented much borrowing from earlier practices both Islamic and Byzantine.

Records of sumptuous festivals at the Ottoman courts begin during the fourteenth century. Byzantine accounts describe the pomp displayed at the wedding of the second Ottoman Sultan,

Orhan, with the Byzantine princess, Theodora, in 1346. 28

Orhan's successor, , sponsored several sur festivals, one to celebrate the circumcision of his three sons, at in

1387, and another to celebrate the politically strategic marriage of his eldest son. 29 ]h these very early Ottoman festivities one notes the growing Ottoman propensity toward ever more

26see Grunebaum, pp. 73-76.

27The prince was Muzaffar ad-Din Eôkbürû, brother-in-law of the famous Baladin.

28Creasy, p. 18.

29gee And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 17. 3 7 ostentatious festival displays, as well as the tendency to use the festivities for political purposes.

Throughout the fifteenth century, the Ottomans used royal marriages to cement various political alliances, and the feasts attendant upon these weddings, and those for royal circumcisions, were designed to impress both foreign powers and Ottoman subjects alike with the Sultan's magnificence and wealth. Par­ ticular festivals of importance during this period would include the wedding feasts sponsored by Murad H in 1438; the four-day circumcision feast given by Mehmed II in 1457; and the several festivals of Bayazid H, whose court shows were known for their hordes of professional entertainers of all kinds.

Most of the important Ottoman festivals of the fifteenth century were held at or near Edirne, which had been the Ottoman capital just prior to the capture of Constantinople; toward the end of the century and for the next four centuries, most of the

SOjbid. . pp. 10, 17-18. Also see And. Kirk Gun Ku'k Gece. pp. 10-11. 88 important Imperial festivals took place in Istanbul. 31 Bayazid II came to Istanbul to celebrate the double feast of the circumcision of his grandson and the wedding of his daughter in 1491, 32 and particularly splendid were the great festivals given in the Istanbul hippodrome by Suleiman the Magnificent, in 1524 and in 1530. Of the latter there are fairly detailed accounts by the Ottoman writers

Celalzade and Ferdi, 33 as well as a description by an Italian visitor. 34

Suleiman's sur-i-humayun in 1530, which lasted three weeks, was an instrument of political strategy; his armies had failed to take Vienna, and although they had not been defeated, they were forced to withdraw from the siege. In order to mollify the reaction in Istanbul to his retreat, Suleiman "threw dust in the eyes of his

3lAn important exception was the great festival held at Edirne in 1675, which was witnessed by many European visitors. See Alderson, pp. 98-99; also And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. pp. 198- 99, et passim. Original accounts in English are to be found in Theodore J. Bent (ed. ), Early Vovacres and Travels in Levant (London: Hakluyt Society, 1893), pp. 198-240; and in Roger North, The Lives of the Right Hon. Francis North . . . (London: H. Colburn, 1826), pp. 232-67.

32And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. VÎ7

33see von Hammer, V, 137-45.

34And, Forum. XIV, No. 184 (December 1, 1961), 15. - - 39 subjects, " and ordered the great public rejoicing. 85 This substi­ tution of an outward show for the lack of anything tangible enough to evoke authentic rejoicing among the court and the populace had been used at least once before, by Mehmed n after an unsuccessful campaign to Baghdad. 86

Actually the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent marked the zenith of Ottoman power and glory, and neither he nor his ancestor

Mehmed the Conqueror had to resort to ersatz rejoicings more than once or twice. After Suleiman, however, the empire began to decline from its peak of power and prestige. Although the tremendous energy of the early sultans had created a momentum which sustained some of the old warrior-sptrit for a century after ■

Suleiman, and despite the re-kindling of much of this zeal in the reign of Murad 17 in the seventeenth century, a certain decadence set in at the Ottoman court, a love of luxury and pleasure which marked the sultans for the two and three-quarters centuries after

Suleiman. Suleiman the Magnificent was succeeded by Selim the

Drunkard. A new, sybaritic breed of Ottomans rested on the laurels of their warlike predecessors. This period of stagnation

88von Hammer, V, 138.

88And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 17. 40

and decay, when "the sultans were surrounded by fawning officials

and courtiers, truckling women and slaves, jugglers, wrestlers,

musicians, buffoons, dwarfs eunuchs, soothsayers, astrologers

and servile literati, "37 was a period of the most extravagant

court festivities. Long after the real splendour of the Ottoman

empire was past, lavish celebrations and hollow pomp perpetuated

a glittering exterior.

Even as the empire began to shrink, however, the life in the

capital continued to be fairly stable and prosperous, and the court treasury was able to squander fortunes on festivities well into the

eighteenth century. Although the sur-i-humayun of Murad IH in

1582 was undoubtedly the most splendid and lengthy single festival,

the festivities of the seventeenth century came with prodigal

frequency, and in the so-called "Tulip Age" and during the reign of

Ahmed HE in the first three decades of the eighteenth century, an

atmosphere of almost uninterrupted festivity prevailed. 38

37sydney N. Fisher, The Middle East; A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960), p. 229.

38The most elegant of the Ottoman festival-books describes festivities of the reign of Ahmed m. Surname-i-Vehbi (Istanbul, ca. 1720), Topkapi Sarayi Kitapli^i, No. 3593. There are copies of the text also at the National-bibliothek in Vienna, the Bibliothèque National in Paris, and the . 41

After the reign of Ahmed m , the increasing weakness of the

Ottoman empire finally began to be reflected in a decline of the court festivals. Some of the old splendor could be noted as late as 1836, but after the and other reforms of Sultan

Abdul Mecid which began around 1839, the festivities became an anachronistic luxury which the impoverished "sick man of

Europe" could ill afford. The last few Ottoman festivals were modest affairs held on the hillside by the Dolmabahce palace in

Istanbul. With the passing of the Ottoman empire and the establishment of a new Turkey under Kemal Ataturk, the old festival pomp and most of the traditional entertainments of

Ottoman times virtually disappeared, although remnants managed to survive into the 1930's in Istanbul--such as the parade of the guilds—and a few of the old festival ceremonies and pastimes are said to persist even today, in the remote peasant villages of

Anatolia,

^%ee Par doe, H, 460-77.

40And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 20.

^^Metin And, "The Dances of Anatolian Turkey, " Dance Perspectives. No. 3 (Summer, 1959), pp. 5-12. Also see E. W. F. Tomlin, Life in Modern Turkey (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1946), pp. 27-34. CHAPTER HI

THE S lk -i-HUMAYUN OF MURAD HI:

THE PREPARATIONS FOR THE FESTIVAL

Introduction

Murad HE is generally characterized as a weak, ineffectual monarch whose rule hastened the decline of the Ottoman empire. ,

Dominated by his courtiers and the women of his harem--such as his mother, the Sultana Valide. Nin? Banu, and the Sultana Safiye—

Murad gave in to a listless life of luxury and licentious pleasure.

His amorous tendencies were much encouraged by the influence- seeking members of the harem, and he fathered well over a hundred children. Yet he was considered a melancholy mystic, and spent much time writing mystical poetry, under the pen-name of Muradi. ^

The weakening of the empire under Murad HE was strictly internal, however. The outward splendor of his court was extrava­ gant. The empire was militarily and economically strong; at the

ISee J. H. Kramers, "Murad HE, " Encyclopaedia of Islam. n(1934), 730-31.

42 43

time of the sur-i-hümâyun of 1582, the empire enjoyed a truce with

the nations of Christian Europe which was very much to the Turks'

favour, 2 and Murad's troops were engaged in a generally successful war with the Persians. Within the vast boundaries of the empire

itself, the Ottoman court continued to exert control over numerous vassal provinces and states, from Morocco to Tatary.

The maintenance of the empire's external strength and

integrity in the first years of Murad's reign had been due in large

part to the efforts of the Grand Vizir, Mehmed Sokolli, who had been Vizir under Suleiman the Magnificent and who represented all the virile vigour of the older regimes. With Sokolli's gradual loss

of favour at court and then his assassination m 1579, news of the

growing corruption at the court began to spread to the provinces

and even became sensible to foreign powers. ^ A certain turmoil

prevailed at the court in the years after Sokolli's death. A rapid

succession of Grand Vizirs weakened the administration of the

government, and Murad was particularly saddened by the death of

two of his sons in 1580. ^

^Even distant Poland was considered more or less an Ottoman vassal state. Ibid. , p. 730.

^Creasy, p. 224.

^Haunolth, p. 468. 44

Faced with growing turmoil and weakness at court, with a

decline of prestige not only in the Ottoman provinces but abroad,

and the fact that he had only one son left who was old enough to

succeed him, ^ Murad felt the need for a dramatic move to re-assert the Ottoman magnificence and power. A western campaign was out of the question because of the Persian war; what Murad and his

advisers sought was not more war, but a stable peace, particularly with the Christian states of Europe, and solidarity and loyalty within the empire itself. Accordingly, in 1581, he began prepara­ tions for the most splendid s w -i-humavun in the history of the empire, a senlik which would at once be a gesture of conciliatory

diplomacy and a mighty show of strength and authority.

Invitation of Foreign Dignitaries

The great festival was scheduled for the Spring of 1582.

The entire population of the capital would be on hand to honor the young prince Mehmed and to pay homage to the might of his noble

father, but Murad especially wanted the attendance of all the

vassal rulers of the empire, and representatives of all the

foreign states with which the empire had dealings, peaceful or

^ id . Circumcision (sihmet) was considered a necessity pre­ requisite for an Ottoman prince to be eligible to take over the reins of power as sultan. Also, the operation was required for all con­ verts to Islam, even those of mature years. See Alderson, p. 104. 45 warlike. Official messengers were sent out a year in advance, carrying polite entreaties to the foreign rulers to send delegations in the spirit of peace and friendship, and stern commands to the

Ottoman vassals to come and show their fealty to the sultan.

Presents were to be expected in such a case, but Murad further asserted his authority by demanding the rich gifts. 6

The Ottoman dignitaries thus summoned included the governors (bevlerbeyler) and fiscal administrators ( defter- darlar) of the various provinces, the holders of fiefs small and large, and the whole panoply of pas alar, a^alar, and emirler who made up the complex Ottoman imperial administration. Delivered to these lords was a circular letter of invitation, notable for its style and its singular metaphors; it is worth quoting this letter here, if only to help suggest the flavor of over-blown pomp and dignity which characterized the ceremonies surrounding the court and its imperial festivals;

We make known to you by this imperial utterance, decorated with our monogram, very noble and very august, the existence of a duty sacred and indispensible for the,elect people, for the blest people, for the Muhammadan people, but particularly for the sultans, the monarchs, the sovereigns, as for the princes of blood of their august house, to follow in all the laws and the precepts of our holy prophet, the leader of all the patriarchs and of all the celestial envoys, and to

^Haunolth, p. 468. 46 observe religiously all that which is prescribed in our holy book, where it is said: "Follow the path of Abr^am your father, you who hold the great name of Musulman. " We have consequently resolved to accomplish the precept relative to the act of cir­ cumcision, in the person of prince Mehmed our well beloved son; of this prince who, covered with the protective wings of celestial grace and divine assist­ ance, believes in felicity and in good grace, in the glorious path of the imperial throne; of this prince in whom respires all nobleness, grandeur and magnificence; of this prince who, honoured with the same name as our holy prophet, makes the complement of the most just administration of our high and sublime court; of this prince who is the most beautiful of the flowers of the garden of equity and of sovereign power; the most precious sprout of the garden of grandeur and majesty; the pearl of the most fine pearliness of monarchy and supreme felicity; finally the most luminous star of the firma­ ment of serenity, calm, and of the public happiness. Thus the august personage of this prince, the plant of his existence, having already had some happy enlargements in the garden of virility and force, and the tender shrub of his essence making already a superb ornament in the vineyard of prosperity and grandeur, it is necessary that the vine-trimmer of circumcision work his sharp instrument on this new plant, on this charming rose-bush, and that he direct it towards the vegetative knob which is the chief of the reproductive faculties, and the bud of precious fruits and fortunate sprouts in the great orchard of the Caliphate and of supreme power. This august ceremony will take place, then, under the auspices of Providence, during the following Spring, in the return of a season when nature rejuve­ nates and embellishes, offering to human eyes the beauties of Paradise, and makes us admire the marvels of the one who is all-powerful. It is by the example of our glorious ancestors, who had always been accustomed to make public these solemnities throughout the extent of the empire, to convene there all the great lords of the state, and generally all the officers invested with authority and dignity, that we 47 send to you the present supreme order, for to make to you the same notifications, and to invite you to come and participate in the honour and the joy of this festival, which will be celebrated in the midst of the most great rejoicing. That the supreme being deigns to bless this feast, from the beginning unto the endl"^

This letter was designed, of course, for the Muslim lords of the empire; the various foreign heads of state were sent invitations by way of Ottoman nobles and court officers despatched to the foreign embassies and capitals. Thus invited were the delegations of most of the great European powers whom Sultan

Murad sought to impress with his magnificence: France, the

Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Ragusa, and Poland. In addition to these powers of Christendom, Murad invited the Sultan of Fez and

Morocco, the of the Tatars, and even a representative of his enemy, the Persian gah Mehmed Hodabanda,

The response to Murad's invitations must have been quite gratifying to him. Attendance by his own subjects and vassal lords was complete and dutiful, and practically all the foreign powers sent delegations of ambassadors to the great festival.

^This letter is reproduced by Constantine Mouradagea d'Ohsson, in his Tableau General de l'Empire Othoman (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1788-1824), H, 290-93. The flowery metaphors of this document help make clear some of the symbolism employed in circumcision ceremonies. See infra,, pp. 81-90. 48

The French ambassador himself, displeased over the accommoda­ tions for his delegation on the festival-ground, left in a huff during the first days of the festival, declaring that the representative of a treschristien kino had no business honoring an Islamic ruler.

The remainder of the French delegation attended unofficially thereafter, and aside from the one characteristically Gallic gesture, ^ the participation of the Christian ambassadors and their retinues was examplary and cooperative, even in the face of various insults to their honor displayed in some of the shows and pageants. ^

The foreign delegations from the East were no less coopera­ tive. The Khan of the Tatars sent a large delegation, and the

Sultan of Fez and Morocco did also. The entourage of the Persian ambassador was especially large and splendid. ^0

Almost all of Murad's invitations having been accepted, the sur-i-hinnayun was one of the great international gatherings of the sixteenth century. Brought together for nearly two months

®See Palerne, p. 444. Despite the departure of the French ambassador, the French king's gift to the Sultan—a clock—was formally presented and accepted.

9See infra. , pp. 201, 225.

lOpalerne, pp. 444-45. 49 were represents-' Ives of almost every major state in the world, save those of the Far East and India.

Appointment of Officials

Such an enormous gathering, with hundreds of foreign visitors, many thousands of native participants and spectators, and a duration of nearly two months time in which there had to be almost continual feasting and entertainment, obviously needed the most careful planning and organization. With a year to prepare and with great financial resources at his command, Murad divided the tasks to be done and appointed a number of officials to super­ vise and ensure the execution of the plans which he and his advisers had made. Two palace officials were charged with the planning and financing of the festivities in advance, working closely with the sultan and other members of the court; and four other Ottoman nobles were given positions of responsibility in managing the great festival itself.

The chief palace functionary in charge of planning and organizing the entire s w -i-hümavun was one Karabalibeg, who

llThere was evidently no representative of the one other great Islamic empire of the period, the Mughal empire of India. The similarities between the Ottoman festivities and those of the Mughal emperors are striking. See Mohd. Azhar Ansari, "Amusement and Games of the Great Mughals, " Islamic Culture. XXXV, No. 1 (July, 1961), 21-31. 50

had been previously the Kilarci basi. or master of the imperial

kitchens. This member of the palace inner service was dubbed

the Emir of the festival. As such, he coordinated the plans of the many participating groups and individuals, acting more as an

intendant than as a stage manager. Another member of the inner

service who assisted the Emir Karabalibeg in an official capacity was Hamzabeg, the Nisanci. or grand scribe of the court; he was

appointed Nazir, or inspector, of the festival, and put in charge

of the finances. He was given an initial fund of half-a-mülion

akçeler from the imperial treasury. 13 Together, these two

officials shaped the work of many others both inside and out of the palace, in order that the multitudinous events of the great

festival should mesh reliably. For a festival in which all the

elements of Ottoman society were represented, all the partici­

pating groups had to be consulted, from the upper echelons of the

imperial court and the religious institution, to the guilds, dervis

orders and professional entertainers. If the Ottoman planners

did not produce anything as exquisitely organized as did the

l^Hammer, VII, 146.

ISAn akce. or asper, was a small silver coin. During the reign of Murad IDE, 50 akceler equalled one Austrian gold ducat. See Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. I, 51. 51

professional Italian festival-masters, at least they managed to keep the sprawling senlik from becoming wholly formless. It is

apparent that most of the major ceremonies and entertainments of the festival had been arranged in some sequential order.

As for the management of the actual festivities themselves,

for the handling of the various logistical problems in and around the festival-grounds, there were four appointed officials, all

important Ottoman dignitaries. The leading post of Dü^ünci ba^i.

or master of the festival, was assigned to Ibrahim Pas a. the

Bevlerbey of . His task was that of a grand stage-

manager or maitre de ceremonies. Placed in charge of

general refreshments was Caier-Aga, the Bevlerbey of

Anatolia, who became the Serbet basi. or master of the sherbet.

The a$a of the janissaries, Ferhad pas a. was made master of

the guards, and entrusted with keeping general order during the

festivities and protecting the various dignitaries and officials. * A The grand admiral of the fleet, the Kaptan pas a. ULuc-Ali, was

given the important post of Mimar basi. or chief architect; he

had not only to supervise the design and construction of the

^^See And, Kirk Giin Kirk Gece. p. 22. 52

fireworks and other spectacular devices, but also to prepare the

entire festival-grounds for the sûr-i-hümâyun.

Preparation of the Festival Site

Murad's great festival was held at the site of one of the

great theatrical structures of the classical world, the hippodrome

of Constantinople. Originally built by Septimus Severus and

Constantine in the fourth century A. D ., the hippodrome was

intended for chariot races; but during most of the centuries after

the fall of the western Roman empire, this great race-course became the principal recreational and ceremonial center of the

"New Rome. "

The hippodrome continued to be used for the games and

festivities of the Byzantine empire at least until the end of the

eleventh century, ^ but over the centuries and especially after

the disastrous sack of Constantinople in 1204 by the Crusaders,

the original, mammoth structure became decimated. All of the

original marble stands and most of the decorated spina were

l&This listing of officials comes principally from Haunolth, p. 471; also, from the Particular Beschrevbuncr. p. 23.

^%ee R. Janin. Constantinople Bvzantine (Paris; Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, 1950), pp. 73-79.

l^Nicoll, pp. 159-60. 53 torn down for their building materials, and by the time of the

Turkish conquest, what rem.ained of the hippodrome was a large

open field, at the center of which stood but three of the original

monuments of the spina. Whereas the original hippodrome had

been over 1,800 feet in length with a spina of almost 800 feet, 18

the area in Ottoman times had a spina of but 350 feet, and the open

space where the stands had been was encroached upon by various

Byzantine and Ottoman buildings.

Still, there remained a considerable open plain of dusty

gravel and grass, and the hippodrome area, called by the Turks

At Meydan, began to be used by the Ottomans for the same festive

and ceremonial purposes as it had been by the Byzantines. The

three remaining monuments—the obelisk of Theodosius, the

serpentine column, and the so-called masonry column—formed

a natural center for action around which large audiences could

gather, and we read of festivals as early as the reign of Mehmed

the conqueror in which rope-walkers and acrobats used the three

columns as part of their acts. 20

18janin, map No. 1.

ISAsadJalal, Constantinople de Byzance a Stamboul (Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1909), pp. 109-117.

^^Chalkokondyles, p. 276. 54

Various methods were used, prior to the senlik of 1582, for decorating the M Meydan. and for seating arrangements. The common folk always stood or milled about on the ground, but the

Sultan and his entourage required places of honor above the commoners. For the s&r-i-humavun given by Suleiman in 1530, a magnificent throne was set up at the northern end of the place, supported by lapis columns and covered by a baldaquin resplendent with gold and gaudy pennants; the other noble spectators were housed in multi-colored tents which surrounded the three columns of the spina. ^1 At other festivals, raised pavilions were employed so that the dignitaries could be afforded a better view and a position of eminence. These around the At

Mevdan were always more or less temporary structures, since the area had a number of uses other than for imperial festivals.

In various other parts of the capital where festivities took place, permanent, quite massive kiosks were erected for the sultan and his guests.

SlHammer, V, 139-45.

22rhe two most important of these were the Alav-Kosk. or "parade-kiosk, " and the Yali-K8sk. or "sea-shore-kiosk. " From the latter the sultans watched aquatic festivals and displays. 55

The pavilions and galleries which the mimar basi set up for the s w -i-hümâvun of Murad m came as near as ever in the history of the Ottoman festivals to creating a complete festival amphitheatre on the site of the old hippodrome. Structures of various types ringed the central columns, highly decorated and arranged so as to make spectacularly effective both the static and the processional elements of the festivities. Fortunately, there is enough original textual and pictorial evidence to permit a fairly accurate reconstruction of this festival site; the Surname of Murad m depicts in detail one-half of the amphitheatrical arrangement, 23 and th^descriptions by Haunolth, Lebelski, and Palerne help to arrive at a vivid picture of the entire setting.

A reconstruction of the festival site, in the form of a conjectural sketch and plan, has been prepared, on the basis of the evidence, for this study; Figures 1 and 2 are designed to give an indication of the arrangement of buildings around the spina monuments, as well as an approximate idea of the size and extent of the entire area. The dimensions suggested in the conjectural sketch and plan can only remain approximate in the

23Most of Osman's paintings picture the events of the festival taking place in front of the unchanging background of the north-west side of the M Mevdan; this technique gives an artistic unity to his over 400 miniatures, but unfortunately he never depicted the other, opposite side. 56 light of the evidence at hand. Osman's paintings, generally so valuable, are of little help with specific dimensions. In his illustrations the three monuments of the spina seem to be about

15 feet from one another, whereas in fact they are slightly over

100 feet from each other. 24 The textual accounts are of little assistance in this respect, because they tend to exaggerate the dimensions, or use units of measure which are imprecise.

Lebelski, in particular, is wildly hyperbolic in describing the enclosed area as "eighteene hundred paces long and twelve hundred paces broade"25__this would make the area more than a müe long, if one considers a "pace"to be three feet I Haunolth and Palerne are more conservative in their estimates. According to

Haunolth, the area was 400 paces (Schritt) long and more than

100 paces w i d e ; ^ 6 Palerne's estimate is 80 fathoms (tovses) long

and half as wide. 27 Considering a pace to be about three feet and

a fathom about six, there is still a substantial ambiguity about the

dimensions. Luckily, however, the exact distance between the

24see Janin, map No. 1. The three monuments are still standing today in the M Meydan in Istanbul.

25Lebelski.

^^Haunolth, p. 470.

27palerne, p. 442. 57 three spina monuments is known, and this modulus of some 210 feet provides the basis for a conjectural reconstruction whose general dimensions fall half-way between the estimates of

Haunolth and Palerne, i. e ., about 600 feet long and about 200 feet wide. This compromise yields an M Meydan of a reasonable size in terms of the relation of the spina columns to the background structures in Osman's paintings, 28 and in light of the fact that all the witnesses describe various spectacles which were watched by the entire audience simultaneously. It seems almost inconceivable that this could occur in an area much bigger than 600 by 200 feet.

As far as the arrangement of pavilions around the spina is concerned, there is very little difficulty or ambiguity; the sources are almost entirely in agreement. The Sultan and his son sat in a kiosk which had been built into the wall of the palace of

Ibrahim-pasa. The palace abutted upon the M Meydan. and the

Sultan's balcony or kiosk evidently hung out over the square, opposite the masonry column. According to Lokman's account, this "splendid castle" (Kasr-i ala) was buHt into the existing edifice, and decorated with silver and lustrous gold. 29 Next to

28one can assume that Osman squeezed the background buildings together in his paintings to approximately the same extent as with the three spina monuments.

29Lokman, SÛrname- i- Hümavun. p. 6a. Bm&ae# « f Ibemhfm-m# I I ! B V & — r gmllwy

Ga^tui- 1 %ssr obdiA L r ^ < yecbst \ te*t \

Kroboble Ibtaues PiBTiliou for e s t r o B C O th e Soltmm o f p ovilioa Fes & Norroco B crlo r o f psvUiM Xtoasylvmaio oad M oldoris

Fig. 1. —The M Meydan as arranged for the Sm*-i-Hüma,ynn of Murad IH, Conjectural Plan by Robert Elliott Stout. oi CD 59 the Sultan's kiosk, in the direction of the , was the palace garden, separated by a high wall from the square, and next to the garden was a pavilion for the women of the harem.

The windows of this structure were latticed so that the sultanalar

could look out, but no one could see in. Adjoining this, and

opposite the obelisk, was a large three-tiered gallery designed to hold the various Ottoman and Christian dignitaries. This gallery, according to Haunolth, was built against a wall 70 paces

long and 6 paces high; in the lowest level were placed the Christian

ambassadors, above them the officers of the Sultan and the most

prominent pasaler. and on the top level, the vizirs and provincial

governors. 31 The compartments within were evidently fairly

roomy, or ". . . Chambers appointed for everie ambassador,

places as well to banquet in, as also for to beholde the Plaies

and Pastimes. " 32

A few feet apart from this main gallery was a separate

pavilion for the Kaptan-nasa. and then, forming an end to the

enclosure at the northeast, a large tent for the preparation and

30 Lebelski.

3lHaunolth, p. 470.

32Lebelski. 60 serving of serbet. At this end there was a large open space, about

100 feet wide, which was probably the entrance way for all the processions and pageants, which passed in front of the three-tiered gallery and then the women's pavilion before reaching the Sultan's kiosk.

Across the square from the Sultan, in a position of honor, was a large, richly decorated pavilion for the Persian delegation.

This was a double pavilion, half of it given over to the Persian women. Next to this, facing the serpent column and directly opposite the pavilion of the Ottoman sultanalar, was a kiosk for the Tatars, and next to this, across from the obelisk, was a gallery for the ambassadors of Fez and Morocco, and the beyler of Transylvania and Moldovia. 33 Again at the northeast end, adjoining the main entrance way, was a large separate pavilion or theatre dressé for the Polish delegation. 34 The Poles were placed apart from their fellow Christians because they had arrived late for the opening ceremonies, after all the other western ambassadors had been seated. 35

33palerne, p. 446.

3^Both Lebelski and Palerne refer to the pavilions as "theatres. " In the vocabulary of the western Europwan festivals of the period, "theatre" could refer to a booth or stand set up along the line-of-march of a royal entry or other processional pageant. Palerne, p. 442. 35Haunolth, p. 470. 61

At the very opposite end of the M Meydan from the main

entrance was a large area, 100 feet square, enclosed by a six-foot wall. In this compound were the kitchens which had been set up

for the fifty days of feasting. In the open space between the kitchen-wall and the Persian pavilion, the main body of the court

musicians sat upon a low stand. The open spaces at either side

of the kitchen compound at the southwest end of the square provided

additional entrances and exits for both spectators and performers. ^6

The plan in Figure 1 shows the general lay-out of the festival

site, and the approximate size of the open area about and between

the three monuments; the sketch in Figure 2 is a view from the

South, looking North and East. In the left foreground is the walled kitchen-compound, and in the open space to the right stands

a pyramidal festival-device, called a nakiL, ^7 guarded by an

armed slave. To the right of this is the edge of the Persian

pavilion, and a suggestion of the galleries for the Tatar delegation;

the rest of the right-hand structures are out of sight. In the

middle of the square are the three spina monuments, with the

masonry column nearest to the viewer. Behind the line of the

spina columns stretches the sequence of buildings pictured in

SGibid.

^"^See infra. , pp. 81-84 Fig. 2. —The M Meydan as arranged for the Sur- i-Humaym of Murad d . Conjectural Sketch by Robert Elliott Stout. 03 DO 63

Osman's miniatures and described most clearly by Haunolth. In

the foreground is the wall of the palace of Ibrahim-pasa, with the

Sultan's kiosk; then comes the wall of the palace garden, followed

by the quarters for the women of the harem, and at the end down

by the obelisk is the three-tiered gallery.

The sketch in Figure 2, like the plan, is designed only to

indicate a general layout of the festival site. An approximate

idea of the size of the area is indicated by the two human figures

in the sketch; both the slave in the lower right and the dervis

standing with outstretched arms under the Sultan's kiosk should

be thought of as being just over six feet tall. What the plan and

the sketch cannot indicate, however, is the busy pattern of

decorative and lighting devices which were ranged about the

square, or the gaudy appearance of the pavilions and galleries

which surrounded the festival grounds.

The color originals of Osman's paintings give a good indi­

cation of the bright and festive facade presented by the structures

on the Sultan's side of the M Meydan. and it can be assumed that

the buildings on the opposite side were no less spectacularly

38Less than a half-dozen color plates from the Surname of . Murad m have been published. See the two UNESCO publications on Turkish painting, and also Oktay Aslanapa, Turkish Arts (Istanbul: Doÿan Kardeÿ, 1961). 64 decorated; we are told, in fact, that the Persian and Polish pavilions were among the most splendid. Palerne's acconnt speaks of the facades as "enriched with beautiful paintings in the

Arabian manner, and Osman's miniatures show the character­ istically Islamic geometrical patterns and motifs, laid on in contrasting reds, golds, and blues. What appears as a rather dull, bland tracery in the illustrations from the Surname of

Murad m used for this study, takes on great life and festivity in the color originals.

Other important features of the festival setting which appear neither in the conjectural sketch nor in Osman's paintings are the decorative lighting devices which were attached to some of the pavilions and which were set out in the square itself.

Lebelski speaks of "the Fayre Tyliyard, " in which

. . . there were certaine peeces of woodde, set up verie high, so that they did appeare much more higher than the Pyramides, these peeces of woodde had betwixt them reaching from the one to the other, engines made of corde, composed in the manner of a Tabernacle, to the which was tyed an infinite number of lampes, verie splendisaunt, most dexteriouslie handled, which

39palerne, pp. 443-46.

‘^Qjbid., p. 442. The English translation of Baudier turns Palerne's phrase "enrichi de belles peinctures a l'" into "beautified with rich pictures of Arabia. " Baudier, p. 78. 65

cast a great light through out the place. There was also a wheele, much like unto Myll Wheele, the which turned continuallie of itselfe. ..41

Haunolth also describes these devices, and mentions in addition

"two great masts, one painted red with a gold knob on top and the other smeared with fat, " which were used by the acrobats and rope-walkers. 42

These major devices set up in the middle of the square were supplemented by a series of masts, placed around the periphery, to which lamps were attached. All these, together with lighting fixtures attached to the pavilions, enabled the entire area to be illuminated from dusk until dawn. ^ A In all the temporary festival-arena which ULuc-Ali, as mimar basi, had built for the sw -i-hum^vun of Murad HE managed to make public a sense of the fabled luxury and garish beauty of the Ottoman court. The decorative architecture, as

Metin And observes, deserves a chapter to itself in the history of , 48 and we shall see also how well the festival ground functioned as a setting for pageantry and entertainments of almost every description.

4lLebelski. 42Haunolth, pp. 470-71. 43And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 18. CHAPTER IV

THE SUR-i-HÜmYW OF MURAD HI:

SOLEMN CEREMONIES

Introduction

As the circular letter which Sultan Murad sent to his governors indicated, the sur-i-humlvun was planned for the spring of 1582; but the festival had to be put off until the summer, because the ships bearing the provisions from Egypt had been delayed by bad weather. ^

Finally, after three months' delay, the ships arrived, and the date for the opening of the public festivities was set at the first of June, or the fourteenth day of the Muslim month of Cumada '1-ula. ^

The public festivities were preceded by several days of private court ceremonies and entertainments, which were held both in the

Sultan's imperial seraglio and in the so-called "old seraglio" which was the home of the women of the imperial harem and of their chil­ dren, including young princes who had not yet been circumcised. The

^Haunolth, p. 468.

%abinger, p. 110. Also see Ismail Hami Danismend, Izahli Osmani Tarihi Kronoloiisi (Istanbul: Turkiye Yayinevi Tarih Serisi, 1961), in, 58. 66 67 ceremonies and entertainments in the old seraglio consisted of joyous feasts and celebrations, lasting eight days and nights, in honor of the young prince. These feasts celebrated the end of the prince's supposedly sheltered childhood among the women and children of the court; at the end of the circumcision ceremony,

Mehmed would be considered a man, and ready to wear the sword of Osman when the time came, thus to assume the title of Sultan

Mehmed HE upon his father's death.

The Presentation of Gifts and the Reception of Ambassadors

While the private festivities in the old seraglio honored the young prince, the ceremonies at the imperial seraglio were in honor of Sultan Murad. Over a period of several days, various of the foreign ambassadors to the festival brought rich gifts for the

Sultan to the imperial seraglio, and were afterwards feasted and then permitted an audience with the Sultan. These ceremonies, which were remarkable for the degree of servility shown the

Sultan by the Christian ambassadors, took place according to a set procedure which was followed by all the foreign ambassadors, whether great or insignificant.

The basic pattern of these ceremonies was this: first, the ambassador and his entourage of noblemen would approach the imperial seraglio, and enter into a large courtyard. There, the 68 ambassador would place his gifts to the Sultan upon a tapestry which had been spread out on the ground beneath one of the galleries which surrounded the yard. The foreign delegation would then be invited into the palace, where they would be treated to a rich feast, in the company of various Ottoman nobles. Then, some time later, the ambassador would be taken for a private audience with the Sultan himself. Led into a magnificent throne-room by two guards and taken before the seated Sultan, the ambassador was then permitted to kneel at his feet and to kiss the hem of the Sultan’s robe. This somewhat obsequious ceremony concluded, the ambassador would return to his entourage and then be escorted out of the imperial seraglio.^

In this manner did all the foreign ambassadors offer their presents and their respects to the Sultan, even the treschristien

French ambassador who was later to boycott the public festivities.

As these ceremonies in the imperial seraglio concluded, so did the entertainments in the old seraglio, and the fifty days and nights of public rejoicing could get under way.

o This summary of the ambassadorial ceremonies is drawn from much more detailed description in Palerne, pp. 447-452. A list of the gifts presented to the Sultan can be found in those pages, and additional gift-lists are to be found in Haunolth, pp. 512-514, as well as in the Topkapi Sarayi Argivi Document D. 10015. 69

The Public Ceremonials

The opening of the public festivities was marked by a number

of solemn ceremonies. Ostensibly, many of these were designed to honor the young prince, but in reality, practically all the various ceremonials more involved gestures of obeisance and homage to the

Sultan himself. In a broad sense, these ceremonies consisted of a very elaborate series of entries and genuflections on the part of the leaders of the Ottoman ruling and religious institutions, the leaders of the native religious minorities, and delegations repre­

senting various groups from the general populace.

The initial, processional entries which took place during the first days of the public festivities in the M Meydan set the basic

pattern for the many other ceremonial observances which followed; the next several weeks of the stir - i-h*um^vun saw an intermittent

but continuing stream of ceremonies both religious and secular.

Although many of these ceremonies had as their primary function

the glorification of the Sultan’s might, a number of other con­

siderations obtained which served to govern the nature and

arrangement of these solemn or joyous rites.

One important consideration which determined the character

of the ceremonies had to do with the ostensible purpose of the

festival as an elaborate celebration of the circumcision of prince 70

Mehmed. If it can be discerned that the actual purpose of the festivi­ ties had to do with the demonstration of the magnificence of Sultan

Murad, yet it must be recognized that the nature of many of the ceremonies reflected a concern for the sacramental nature of the occasion. Circumcision was for the Ottomans a fertility rite, a coming of age, a period of suffering compensated for by rewards and presents, and a "wedding of the soul" with overtones of religious mysticism. All of these factors must be taken into account if the significance of many of the ceremonial acts and devices shown at the festival is to be understood.

Another important consideration regarding the ceremonies concerns their social function. The ceremonies had political and religious purposes insofar as they focussed upon the Sultan and his son, but from the point of view of the participants in the cere­ monies themselves, the festivities provided an opportunity to take part in a demonstration of community spirit. As has been pointed out, Ottoman society lacked ethnic or national homogeneity and was made up of numerous sub-groups, religious and secular. The system of ceremonies at the sur-i -humayun was such that it enabled each of these small social units to make its own particular contri­ bution to the whole in the form of a separate ceremony. The initial ceremonies represented the leadership of the major divisions of 71

Ottoman society—political, religious and military; but those cere­ monies which followed, and which were distributed over the several weeks of the festival, were representative of all the smaller sub­ divisions of Ottoman society. As the festivities progressed, each religious confraternity or order, each division of the Ottoman military, and each guild was permitted to present its own ceremony or display, thus enabling every member of society, no matter how humble, to share in celebration with every other member of the complex and heterogeneous whole of Ottoman society. As the various ceremonies and displays were presented during the fifty days and nights of the festival, each member of society had the opportunity to be a participant as well as a spectator.

Yet another function served by the various ceremonies was that of organization. It has been pointed out that the sûr-i-hümayun of Murad in lacked the artful structure of many of the aristocratic fetes of renaissance Europe, and that it seemed particularly

sprawling and formless to some of the European visitors, notably

to von Haunolth. Yet there was a measure of over-all organization to the sur-i-humavun, and it consisted simply of the spacing and

arrangement of the ceremonies so that the various entertainments,

sports and feasts of a more frivolous character could take place

between the more solemn ceremonies in a balanced sequence. Thus, 72 a major ceremony or series of related ceremonies would generally be followed not by more solemn ceremony but by light diversion of one kind or another. One result of this arrangement was that almost every day of the festival featured a variety of contrasting events, producing, at least for some of the western observers, a sense of uneven disarray. Yet one cannot deny that the arrangement also produced a kaleidoscopic shifting which probably resulted in a contin­ uously sustained interest and excitement on the part of the spectators.

Although the many ceremonies of the great festival took many different forms, it is quite easy to abstract the fundamental principle which they all shared. Each of the ceremonies was basically a gesture of homage to the Sultan and honor to his son, prince Mehmed.

Each of the ceremonies involved an entry into the square, a procession across the square to the Sultanas kiosk, and then a presentation to the

Sultan. Sometimes the presentation took the form of a material gift, and sometimes the presentation involved the performance of some ceremonial act. In almost all cases, however, the ceremonies took the general form of a humble bow followed by a ceremonial offering.

Having accepted the presentation, the Sultan would then offer a gesture of reciprocation—either immediately, in the form of largesse thrown down from the imperial kiosk, or later on, in the form of a special banquet. It will be noted that this pattern is similar to that of the 7 3

private ceremonies of presentation which took place in the imperial

seraglio.

The foregoing general remarks on the nat-ure and purposes of the ceremonies in the snr- i-hümayun are intended only to constitute

an introductory appraisal. The following pages contain a more

detailed discussion of some of the more important ceremonies,

particularly the processions of the first few days of the festival,

and of the various feasts and banquets which subsequently took place.

Other important ceremonies of significance from the point of view

of pageantry and entertainment will be discussed in detail at appro­

priate points later on in this study. The attention to matters of

ceremony in this and later chapters is not intended to be exhaustive,

but is designed to indicate the contextual relationship of ceremony,

pageantry, and entertainment which prevailed during the festivities.

The Imperial Processions

The sur-i-humavun began on the morning of June first with

the first of a series of magnificent processions, or alavlar. Haunolth,

Lebelski, Palerne, and the de Vigenere account all provide vivid if

occasionally contradictory descriptions of these processions, and

Figures 3 through 6 show portions of the alavlar as depicted in the

Surname of Murad m. The main participants in these initial cere­

monies were the highest members of the imperial court, together 74

with many of the highest lords of the empire; these dignitaries were

supported by lesser court officials and a large military escort, as

well as musicians, entertainers and splendid pageant devices.

Although the sources disagree on some matters of detail with regard

to these processions,'^ an accurate if general picture of the imperial

alavlar can be reconstructed.

The first of the processions began at the imperial seraglio and

arrived in the At Meydan about mid-day. At the head of this pro­

cession was the Sultan himself, escorted by court dignitaries and a

guard of janissaries. Figure 3 shows part of this procession; the

bearded Sultan, wearing a turban with the imperial heron-plumes,

is preceded by a troupe of janissary bowmen on foot. Two mounted

janissary officers follow the Sultan, and his progress is flanked on

either side by Ottoman dignitaries.

The Sultan’s procession marched directly to the festival-

grounds, making an entry from the eastern corner of the square.

His arrival was greeted with a tremendous acclamation from the

thousands of his subjects who had gathered in the M Meydan. The

'^Both Palerne and the Fugger account are misleading in that they speak of a single procession with the Sultan and his son riding side by side. The other western sources and the Surname paintings show this not to have been the case. 7 5

Fig. 3. —The Luperial Procession. Sultan Murad and Janissary Guard. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 1. 76

Sultan's entourage went round about the spina and finally stopped before the palace of Ibrahim-pasa;- then the Sultan entered the palace, on a path of golden tapestries. ^ As Murad took his place in the palace, his 500 janissaries withdrew from the palace gate and took up positions guarding the various galleries and pavilions and ushering dignitaries into these places of honour.

The initial entry having been made by the Sultan himself, the ceremonies of homage and obeisance could begin, and the first of these gestures of respect came from prince Mehmed. The Sultan had started out, at the head of the first alav. from the imperial seraglio. Prince Mehmed proceeded to the hippodrome at the end of a second great procession, one which had started not at the imperial seraglio, but at the old seraglio which had been the scene of the eight days of private festivities. As the public festival began, the prince made his final farewell to his mother. ® This ceremonial act completed, Mehmed left the old seraglio and proceeded with great pomp to join his father at the M Meydan.

Though it is apparent that Mehmed's place in the ceremonial hierarchy was definitely beneath the pre-eminent position of Sultan

Murad, the prince's procession was no less splendid than that of his

palerne, p. 455.

^Lebelski. 77 father. Figure 4 shows part of Mehmed's entourage as depicted by Osman. The prince, who also wears the imperial heron-plumes and who rides a richly draped stallion, is escorted and protected by guards on foot, and followed by mounted Ottoman lords and n court officials. Preceding the prince, on foot, is a group whose fantastic aspect is described with wonderment and some horror by almost all of the western witnesses. Haunolth calls them

"soldiers, " who

. . . were naked right down to the belt. The first of them carried a warbanner with its shaft going right through his skin and flesh. Of the others, one had two small spears piercing him, and quite a few had daggers, , long blades, lances, bundles of feathers and cranefeather quills piercing them near the temples. Others had naked swords run through their sides, and arrows piercing their arms. Others had horseshoes nailed to them with' all six nails. Finally, one had nearly fifty knives stuck into him from all sides, right through flesh. °

"^Haunolth, Palerne and the Surname -i-Humayun all include detailed rosters indicating the titles and ranks of the lords and high officials who marched in the great processions. However, a precise recounting of all these is beyond the scope of the present study. A full explication of the multitudinous swarm of Ottoman court and military titles can be found in Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. I, 39-199, et passim.

^Haunolth, pp. 471-72. Fig. 4. —The Imperial Procession. Mehmed Sultan and the Deliler. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 427, 219. 00 79

A close examination of the left half of Figure 4 will reveal most of the gory details of Haunolth's description. The individuals who made up this bizarre portion of the imperial alay were indeed soldiers, but of a class evidently unknown to any but the Ottoman army; these were the deliler. or "madmen, " irregular volunteers who were required to perform the most dangerous feats on the battlefield to prove their superhuman strength and endurance. ^

Valued as scouts, the deliler were rewarded for foolhardy exploits not only on the field of battle but during imperial festivals. Here in the procession, and later on in the festivities, the deliler demonstrated their ability to endure extreme suffering as proof of their devotion to the Sultan, and as a symbolic sharing of the suffer­ ing to which the young prince would have to submit during the operation of circumcision.

Other portions of the procession were less barbaric in aspect.

There are a few deliler in Figure 5, but the scene is dominated by the richly dressed nobles and officers on horseback. In the foreground is part of a military band, playing trumpets and drums.

^See Thomas Artus, Plusiers Descriptions des Accoustremens. tant des Magistrats et Officiers de la Porte ^ L'Empereur des Turcs que des peuples assuiectis a son Empire (Paris: Claude Sonnius, 1632), p. 17.

l^Haunolth, p. 472. 80

Fig. 5 .--The Imperial^tJroc^sion! ÎSusiSÀnsTrîS Enter- talners. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 215. 81 and next to them cavort two dancing-boys, a musician playing a kind of lute, and a buffoon who performs a comic dance and waves two scarves. The presence of these dancing performers in a solemn cavalcade of high officials suggests something of the potpourri of grand pomp and low frivolity which characterized a good part of the festivities.

Mehmed Sultan made his entry into the festival square on the

second of June, the day after the Sultan’s entrance. Like his father, he was greeted with great acclamation as he rode across the M Meydan to the palace of Ibrahim-pasa. Figure 6 depicts

Mehmed’s arrival at the palace gate. As the prince approaches, janissaries and other attendants lay down rich tapestries before him. When the prince went into the palace to kiss his father’s hand . in homage, the air and the earth once more shook with the noise of

the massed military bands and other groups of musicians who had 13 by then gathered into the square.

Mehmed then took his place in the imperial kiosk at his father’s

side. With the imperial personages ensconced above the square, there

^^See infra. , pp. 109-110.

^%aunolth, p. 469.

^^Palerne, p. 454. 82

Arrival of Mehmed Sultan at the Palace of Surname of Murad in. OSUTC Film no, 1625, frame 4. 83 next began a ceremony of displaying and emplacing the many festi­ val devices and decorations which had accompanied the young prince. The most numerous and important of these devices were the nakillar, or wedding-palms. These symbolic devices are described in all the textual accounts, but are inexplicably absent from Osman's paintings. The nakil was an uniquely Ottoman, or more correctly, Turkish symbol which was the indispensable con­ comitant of any wedding or circumcision festival, humble or imperial, and the device probably represents a carry-over from the animism and paganism of the pre-islamic Turks. Called by von Hammer "Symbols of virile force and fecundity, the nakillar were great conical constructions of wire and wax, divided into several sections, and covered with flowers and fresh sprouting foliage. The phallic char­ acter of these fertility symbols recalls the language of the letter of invitation which Murad sent to his governors. 15

The ceremonial importance of the nakillar in the imperial wedding and circumcision festivals cannot be overestimated; an entire guild in Istanbul, the Nakilcian. did almost nothing but construct these devices, and in many of the great festivals, building would

^^Hammer, VH, p. 151.

^^See supra. , pp. 44-46.

^%vliya, p. 220. 84 be pulled down to make way for the largest of the nakillar. All of the many nakillar used in the Ottoman festivals were ostenta­ tiously large when compared to those of an ordinary sur festival, but some were enormous and required hundreds of slaves to carry them.

Figure 7 depicts one of these mammoth devices, as drawn by an English visitor to the sur-i-humayun of 1675 in Edirne. The picture is labeled "A Turkish Pageant. The device, which was about 75 feet high, as the legend indicates, is decorated with floral and vegetative motifs, as well as silken pennants. At the top is a crescent, symbolic of Islam. The cross-beams at the base and the additional pikes and lines attached to the upper portions enabled the structure to be carried without toppling over.

For the sur-i-humayun of Murad IE, over one hundred and fifty nakillar were constructed; one hundred of these were carried by four men each, interspersed with fifty or so others which were

smaller and could be carried by one man each. These were paraded

17 Bent, pp. 200-201. Compensation was made to the owners of the demolished buildings. 18 Paul Rycaut, The History ^ Turkish Empire from the Year 1623 ^ th e Year 1677 (London: by J, M. for John Starkey, 1680% p. 320. The English visitor was Dr. John Covel. 8 5

, fitnest tM aifjrj

J'lU lirrni f

X'uU^CÙth

ATlirkifh Pasennt

Fig. 7. —A Nakil. Reproduced from Rycaut, The History of the Turkish Empire, p. 320. 86 through the streets in that part of the lengthy procession which

extended between the ushers at the front and the prince who brought

up the rear; ranks of these nakillar were alternated with troupes of

musicians and singers of sacred hymns. But the main foci of the

middle section of the imperial procession were the four great nakillar,

each over eighty feet in height and each carried by nearly a hundred

janissaries.

These nakillar and other festival devices were paraded into

the square ahead of prince Mehmed. Then this line of the procession

paused while Mehmed Sultan made his solemn entry. When Mehmed

had taken his place in the palace of Ibrahim-pasa, the festival-devices

were displayed and ceremonially set in place opposite to the Sultan’s

kiosk.

At this point in the proceedings, one must take notice of a

phenomenon which, like the deliler and the nakillar. was an unique

and distinctive feature of the great Ottoman festivals. This was the

company of the Tulumcilar. As the festival-devices were carried

and drawn into the square along with throngs of spectators who had

followed the parade along, there appeared

. . . nearly 500 persons, the Dulumtschi. who were for clownish purposes clad in multicoloured leather.

^^Haunolth, p. 470.

2°Ibid. 87

Each of them had an inflated goatskin smeared with grease and was given daily 10 aspers as pay . . . these also had a head man in charge, who was also half a clown. He rode on a donkey. 21

The function of the clownishly dressed Tulumcilar was twofold.

First, they had to control the great crowds and keep the spectators at a distance from the displays. In this the Tulumcilar resembled the "green men" of the early English pageants, who used firestocks to make a path through the London citizenry. This function is neatly described in Dr. Covel’s account of the 1675 festivities:

There are men . . . cal'd Tooloonies from skins of sheep (cal’d Tooloons) blown up full of wind, and all dawbd with oil and tar, and in leather jackets besmeared in like manner. The Turkes, who are very spruce and chary of their fine g^m ents, run from these people as from the divel, . .

The second function of the tulumcilar was to amuse the spec­ tators with their clowning and buffoonery. Accordingly, they were dressed in the manner of buffoons. Figure 8 shows a group of tulum­ cilar with their a%"a as they pass beneath the Sultan’s kiosk; the clowns wear their distinctive fools' caps and carry their inflated tulumlar.

The 500 tulumcilar made their appearance during the opening ceremonies of the sûr-i-hümavun. and remained to keep order and provide incidental amusement for the entire fifty days and nights.

^^Ibid.. p. 271.

22Bent, p. 204. 88

Fig. 8. —The Tulumcilar and their Aga. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 2. 89

Their function as entertainers will be discussed in the following chapter; here the tulumcilar are introduced only as an important part of the processional pageantry which filled the hippodrome during the first days of the festival.

The tulumcilar assisted the janissaries and other attendants as they maneuvered the great nakillar past the Sultan's kiosk and into the place of honor across from the palace of Ibrahim-pasa.

Then followed other pageant devices designed to honor the Sultan and his son. Some of these devices were rolled in on wheels, and are referred to as "grands pegmates" by de Vigenere. ^3 others, like the nakillar. were carried--by soldiers, slaves, or the mem­ bers of guilds which had constructed the devices.

Some of these devices, which were ceremoniously brought across the whole length of the M Mevdan before formally presented to the Sultan and prince Mehmed, were religious in character, symbolic of the semi-sacramental nature of Mehmed's forthcoming circumcision, or sunnet. 24 Among these were a number of artificial

23vigenere, p. 280.

24Gelibolulu All refers to Mehmed's sunnet (p. 1, vs. lb), as well as his s&r-i-hattn: the former refers to the ceremony of circumcision itself, while the latter refers to the accompanying celebration. 90 gardens, which employed the same basic symbolism for virility and fertility as did the nakillar; in fact, they may be thought of as varia­ tions or eleborations of the nakillar, serving the same ceremonial purpose and possibly having been constructed by the same guild.

Like the nakillar, these little gardens, or ba^celar, were used for both imperial circumcision and wedding festivals.

A typical example of the several gardens depicted in the Surname of Murad IE can be seen in Figure 9. This little ba&ce is mounted on a low, four-wheeled wagon, and features a small fountain surrounded by flowering shrubs and miniature trees. These garden pageants had a great deal of aesthetic as well as religious significance to the Ottomans, since gardening was considered practically a in

Turkey during this period. It would be reasonable to suggest that the presentation of an elegantly fashioned garden at an Ottoman sur-i-humavun was quite probably much the same as the contribu­ tion of a renaissance painter or sculptor to a contemporary Italian trionfo or Corpus Christi pageant. Both acts involved artistic creation in the expression of religious and/or political devotion.

25see Evliya, p. 220.

BGgee And, Dance Perspectives. No. 3 (Summer, 1959), p. 61.

^"^See Pallis, pp. 197-199. 9 1

Fig. 9. —An Artificial Garden. Surname of Murad IE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 171. 92

Other devices which were brought before the imperial kiosk were religious in a more strictly Islamic manner than the semi­ pagan nakiU^ and ba^celar. One of the most spectacular of these was the model of the Mosque of Suleiman depicted in Figure 10.

Probably constructed of light lath and pasteboard, and then painted, the device was carried by a number of attendants; the Surname miniature shows six attendants supporting one side of the structure with shoulder-yokes, which are in turn attached to cross-beams at the base. Two other attendants seem to be guiding the device as it moves along. The position of the attendants would seem to indi­ cate that this model of the Mosque of Suleiman, like almost all of the other pageant devices in the sur-i-humayun of Murad m , was moved across the square in front of the spectators’ galleries before reaching a position just under the Sultan’s kiosk. Some of the devices, like the nakillar. were then placed in a prominent position on the edge of the square, but others were drawn out of the festival-ground entirely, to make way for other displays.

The religious theme of Mehmed’s procession on the second day of the festivities was continued in the solemn processional entries

^^Haunolth, p. 506, identifies the mosque as being the Mosque of Suleiman. There may have been other mosque-pageants, but the one shown in Figure 10 is the only one depicted in the Surname. 93

Fig. 10.-- an. Surname of Murad nx OSUTC Film Ifo. 1625, ame 88. 94 which took place on the following day. The third day of the festival was marked by the entrance of the leaders of the Muslim religious establishment, as well as the spiritual heads of the Christian mille tier. As one might expect, the Muslim procession was far more splendid and triumphant than those of the Christian minorities, and it was the first to make its appearance in the square.

The Muslim procession consisted of a great number of Islamic dignitaries, led by the grand mufti, or Seyk- al-Islam. Each of the dignitaries carried a large copy of the Koran, as well as other sacred books. The Seyk-al-Islam carried in a splendid tabernacle mounted on the back of a camel, and "at everie steppe, he turned, and looked over the leaves of his Booke, fayning as though he had searched and sought for some great secrete matter. "29 This parade of dignitaries was accompanied by a select group of hacilar. or pilgrims who had been to Mekka.^® When the entourage had reached the Sultan’s kiosk, the Sevk-al-Islam went into the palace to bestow his blessing upon the Sultan and the young prince. When this cere­ mony was finished, the grand mufti returned to his attendant dignitaries and the company retired from its position beneath the imperial kiosk.

^^Lebelski. 30 Palerne, p. 458. 95

The Muslim entry was followed then by delegations representing

the Christian milletler. First came the priests and officials of the

Greek Orthodox minority, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople in

his long black robes. This group, with bowed heads and in sober fashion, went before the Sultan in an attitude of somewhat begrudging

respect. This delegation was followed in like manner by the repre­

sentatives of the Armenian millet, who were led by the Patriarch of 31 Antioch. Unlike the Muslim leaders, the Christian patriarchs did

not bless the Sultan, but showed their respect with gifts of gold and 32 silver vases. ' Most of the western accounts add to their descriptions

of the Christian processions a certain amount of pious hand-wringing

about the shamefulness of the spectacle of Christians formally bowing 33 before a Muhammadan ruler. But one might observe that even at

this period in Ottoman history, the eastern Christians probably

preferred the Turkish turban to the Papal .

^^Vigenere, p. 282.

^%bid. Also, Palerne, p. 460.

^^See Baudier, p. 82. 9 6 Such were the initial entries of the major religious communities 34 of the realm and the capital; but, if these official religious pro­ cessions established a tone of high seriousness and solemnity into the opening ceremonies, the processional entry which followed, on the fourth day of the sur-i-humayun brought with it a spirit of gaiety and joyous celebration. This was the procession which accompanied the women of the imperial harem, the Sultanalar.

The Sultanalar themselves were not seen by the spectators in the hippdrome, since the women traveled in completely enclosed gc coaches. There were thirty of the coaches, escorted from the old seraglio to the palace of Ibrahim-pasa by a magnificent convoy of high officials, groups of musicians, and some of the deliler. But the most distinctive feature of this procession was the parade of several hundred figures and devices all constructed of sugar candy. Haunolth’s vivid description of this festive display is worth citing;

. . . the candy was carried past, fashioned in the form of all kinds of animals, birds, etc., both big and small.

^^The Sultan received delegations and presents from a number of Jewish groups, at various times during the course of the festi­ vities, but there was evidently no one ceremony involving the formal entry of the leaders of the entire Jewish community. A similar situation prevailed with the Gypsy population. n c Haunoltli, p. 510, indicates that no ordinary women were even permitted to come to the hippodrome to view the festivities, but the Surname miniatures now and again show a few heavily-veiled women among the crowds. 97

There were nine elephants, 17 lions, some of whom were yellow, some grey; 19 leopards and tigers, 22 stallions, 21 camels, 14 giraffes, 9 sea-monsters, each of which was carried by four men, being more than an ell in height, 25 falcons, hawks and sparrow-hawks, 11 storks, 8 ducks, of such size that one man could almost carry them alone. A fountain was also brought which was more than 3 ells wide and which was carried by almost 20 men. Then more than 20 men carried an entire castle. Then came a monster bigger than a man, it had horns and sat naked in the Turkish manner, resembling more the devil than anything else. Then came 5 pheasants, 5 candelabras, 16 jugs, 17 pitchers, 6 small vases, 8 monkeys, 2 chess sets, together with the figures that belonged to them; and all this made from sugar.

A small part of this confectionary procession can be seen in

Figure 11. Although the original miniature is partially damaged, it is still possible to discern the appearance of the sugar-animals which are shown being paraded around beneath the Sultan's kiosk. Most of the figures here are relatively small, requiring only one man each to carry them. Just beneath the Sultan there are figures of a giraffe, a horse, two storks, two peacocks, and a fantastic bird with the crowned head of a young man. In the lower right of the painting, there is the figure of an elephant, carried by two men on a sort of litter.

Although the procession of the sugar-figures foreshadowed

feasting and merriment and thus must be considered a joyous rather

^%aunolth, p. 472. 98

Fig. 11. —The Presentation of Sugar Animals. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 10. ' 99

than a solemn ceremonial, it wül be noted that the sugar-figures continued the same metaphorical (not to say allegorical) symbolism

as had the displays of the nakillar and the little gardens. Birds

and animals of various kinds were considered symbolic of fertility; in fact, some nakillar were decorated with birds as well as plants

and fl.owers. 37 As in western countries, the stork was a distinct

symbol of fertility. Other animal figures were symbolic: the

stallion represented virility and the elephant and the lion both

symbolized lordly power. Most of the other figures and devices

done in sugar reflected symbolism appropriate to the occasion: the garden, the fountain, the falcons, the peacocks, and even the chess-set may all be viewed as suggesting fertility, nobility, and

imperial dignity and wisdom.

To many of the spectators in the M M‘.:ydan. however, the

sugar-figures communicated a somewhat more literal meaning.

The candy symbolized bounteous feasting and general merriment

at the expense of the court. As the Sultanalar took their places

behind the latticed windows which overlooked the square, the

sugar-figures were displayed and then broken up and fed to the

spectators. Some large pieces were sent to the ambassadors and

37Hammer, VII, 150. 100 other dignitaries in their pavilions, but the rest was distributed to the populace. 39

Feasts and Banquets

As we have seen, special private feasts and banquets had been given in the days prior to the opening of the public festivities; but the parade of the sugar-figures marked the start of the general feeding of the populace. The populace was feasted almost every day from the fourth of June until the fourteenth of July.

The feeding of the common people in the hippodrome was conducted in a singularly barbaric manner, and the descriptions of the western observers recall some of the most unsavory aspects of the Roman panem et circenses tradition. The food would be brought from the kitchen-compound and placed on the ground in the middle of the square, with the tulumcilar flailing away to keep the hungry crowds back until the appointed moment to begin; then a fanfare of trumpets and drums would signal the start of the feast, and the crowds would fall ravenously upon the food, trampling each other and much of the food itself in their haste

38palerne, p. 452.

39Haunolth, p. 472.

^^Fugger, p. 72. 101

— "the onrush of the poor was so great, that more than a half of the food was mangled, and the rest so badly spoiled that not even the dogs would touch it.

The usual menu for these general feedings of the common

people consisted of rice, bread and mutton, 42 but sometimes the bill of fare was augmented with special treats. Haunolth describes

one of these:

. . . then to the common people, they gave twenty wholly fried oxen, cooked up with the horns and hoofs still on, which had been all stuffed with wolves, badgers, rabbits and the like; but they looked more like mutilated carcasses than cooked oxen. Some who looked on could not touch meat for days afterwards because of this nauseating sight. Notwithstanding this, nothing remained; the people fought over this in such a manner that they even cut their own fingers and their own hands. 43

Repellent as these feasts were to the western visitors, they were

considered highly amusing to the Ottoman spectators, particularly

to Sultan Murad, who declared that he found great pleasure in the

greedy spectacle. 44 At the conclusion of many of these feedings.

41lbid.. p. 69.

42Le Vigne de Fera, p. 171.

^%aunolth, p. 475.

44pugger, p. 69. 102 the Sultan would throw down coins and silver plates from his kiosk, and yet another frantic onrush would ensue,

The higher class Ottomans and the foreign visitors, of course, dined in a more civilized fashion. Each day, the Ottoman dignitaries and the foreign delegations were served meals in their own galleries and pavilions, and were provided with refreshments of sweetmeats and serbet during the entertainments.

In addition, the Sultan gave special banquets and feasts of honor on various days during the festivities. These were given for a number of particular groups and organizations within the Ottoman ruling, religious, and military institutions, as well as for the several foreign delegations. Thus, there would be one special feast for all the kadHer. or judges, one for the mollalar. or theologians, one for the janissaries, one for the artillerymen, one for the sailors, and so on. These great feasts occurred approximately every third day of the festival during the month of

June, and then were given with less frequency. The banquets for the foreign delegations came last, taking place in the final ten days of the great festival. 47

4&Lebelski. 46ibid,

47Fugger, p. 71. 103

Like the feeding of the common people, these special feasts were held on the At Meydan. In Figure 12, we see a group of

Ottoman dignitaries dining beneath the Sultan's kiosk. The diners sit cross-legged in the Turkish manner, and their bowls of food are placed before them on a carpet. This particular banquet is depicted as taking place in the open air, but evidently most of these special feasts were held under "greate tentes and taber­ nacles made ready in the jousting parke.

With respect to the special banquets in the M Meydan. one can observe how their very scheduling and arrangement fit the general organization of the whole festival. The major banquets were given several days apart, all through the first few weeks of the festivities. They were alternated with other major entertain­ ments and ceremonial displays of contrasting character, so as to make for a varied but balanced sequence of events.

Although the feasts and special banquets themselves cannot really be considered ceremonies, they were more or less directly connected to the ceremonies of homage to the Sultan in that they represented the Sultan's thanks and his generous appreciation of

48Lebelski. 104

Fig. 12.—A on the At Mevdan. Surname of Murad JR. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 34. 105 the respect which had been shown to him and his son. As we shall see, this basic pattern of reciprocity applied not only to matters of ceremony but to the various entertainments as well. CHAPTER V

THE SU R-i-HÎMAYUN OF MURAD HI:

POPULAR EISITERTAINMENTS

Introduction

The spectators in the M Meydan were treated to a rich assortment of Entertainments during the fifty days and nights of the sur-i-hümayun. The festivities included not only all the forms of popular entertainments which ordinarily flourished in the Ottoman empire, but also special spectacular shows designed to fit the particular circumstances of the festival situation. This chapter will generally be concerned with the former category— those kinds of entertainments which were "o^'dinary" in the sense that their performance did not necessarily require or imply the extraordinary circumstances of a vast official senlik.

The range of the Ottoman popular entertainments was considerable, including music, dance, various kinds of dramatic

activity, and the whole assortment of "acts" which one associates with the modem circus and carnival. The performers were almost

always professionals, and members of theatrical companies and

106 107 troupes which had the status of craft guilds. There were companies of entertainers attached to the imperial court, to the households of certain Ottoman noblemen, and to some units of the Ottoman army.

Also, there were several troupes who performed for the general public; they gave regular performances in certain quarters of the city, sometimes toured the countryside, and could be hired out for private wedding and circumcision festivals, or by the pro­ prietors of taverns and -houses.

The early history of the professional popular entertainments in the Ottoman empire remains somewhat obscure, for lack of much documentary evidence. We have already mentioned some of the sporadic references to entertainments during the periods of the Caliphate and the Selcuk empire, ^ but the earliest references to Ottoman entertainments of a theatrical character come during the reign of Sultan Bayazid I, when the Byzantine Manuel

Paleologus found "crowds of mimes, v^hole bodies of instrumen­ talists, choirs of singers, and tribes of dancers" at the Ottoman court. 2 Thereafter, references to the Ottoman popular and court entertainments are met with mcreasing frequency, both in

%ee supra,, pp. 34- 35.

^Herman Reich, Per Mimus (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1903), I, 202. 108

Ottoman writings and in the accounts of foreign travel­ ers. 3

But the most important single source of information on the

Ottoman popular entertainments in general is the famous cata­ logue of the guilds of Istanbul, from the Sevahatname of Evliya

Çelebi. This one source merits separate mention here, since we shall have occasion to refer to it again and again in the following several chapters of this study. Evliya's exhaustive listing includes mention of every kind of professional entertainer, revealing not only the remarkable numbers of troupes of profes­ sional performers, but also the extraordinary degree of specialization which existed in some of the troupes—he lists, for example, over twenty kinds of conjurers and sleight-of-hand artists alone. 5 Since Evliya's remarkable compilation was written only about fifty years after the sùr- i-hümlyun of Mur ad m , we can with confidence use this source as explanatory background for many of the entertainments discussed in the following pages. ®

%ee And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, pp. 137 - 39, et passim.

^Evliya, pp. 104-251.

^Ibid., p. 229. ®The compilation was made in 1638. 109

While the myriad professional entertainers of Ottoman

Istanbul gave performances in a variety of situations during most of the year, and not without a measure of fierce competition, ? a great, all-inclusive senlik like the sur-i-hümayun of Murad HE was the occasion for all the many troupes of the city to perform in one place and before one vast audience. The performers flocked to the hippodrome not simply to entertain and please per se, but out of civic duty; every guild was expected to participate with some kind of display to demonstrate its handiwork, and the troupes of entertainers were guilds. If the cobblers, say, passed before the Sultan making shoes and then presented him with their finest work, so thus did the dancers dance, the actors act, and the jugglers juggle. Like any other guild members, the enter­ tainers would be rewarded by the Sultan for their displays, according to the degree of pleasure which tlie Sultan found in their work.

But many as the Istanbul entertainers were, they were not the only performers at the festival. Such a widely heralded event as the sür-i-hümayun attracted entertainers from other parts of the empire, and from abroad. As we shall see, a number of the performers were Arabs, probably from Cairo, and some others

Vibid., p. 241. 110 came from as far to the east as India. ® There is also definite evidence of western European participation or influence in some of the special festival-displays of a spectacular character. ^

Whereas the special spectacular shows required more or less elaborate preparation and were, like the major ceremonies, sports, and banquets, assigned to specific days or nights according to an overall plan, the ordinary popular entertain­ ments were more loosely organized. Many troupes had their particular moments when they made their entries and performed before the Sultan, thus taking center stage, as it were: but at. other times, the entertainers provided peripheral and incidental performances, often filling in gaps between larger displays, and generally distracting the audience when there was no major attrac­ tion at hand. Sometimes a number of the minor entertainments would take place simultaneously in different parts of the square, creating an atmosphere of tumult. At various times, the minor performers swarmed about at random, "more in number than

%ee infra., pp. 178-79.

%ee infra. , pp. 235-42.

^Qjbrahim-pasa. as the Di^mcu bagi, was the master of ceremonies, but we do not know the details of his supervision of the planning and staging of the festivities. See supra, pp. 48-51. I ll flyes or gnattes. "11 It is apparent that the entertainers performed a valuable service to the organization of the festival as a whole, providing entr 'acte diversion which contributed contrast as well as continuity to the festivities.

The following discussion of the teeming variety of popular entertainments which flourished at the s w -i-hümûym of Murad in should go far toward providing a picture of Ottoman entertain­ ment in general, inasmuch as the whole world of Ottoman entertainment was almost literally present in the hippodrome during those weeks of celebration. Yet in order to provide an explanatory exposition of the entertainments of the festival with some specificity and economy, we shall have to avoid the temp­ tation to (1) write the history of each category of popular entertainment as we come to it, and (2) pile up an exhaustive collection of examples for each of the categories. The following discussion will dwell on a number of selected, characteristic examples which will be supported by enough background and explication to relate these specific instances to the particular context of the sur-i-hum ay un of Murad m, and to the general context of Ottoman cultural and theatrical tradition. The pro­ cedure reiterated here wül apply not only to the present chapter

llLebelski. 112 on the popular entertainments, but also to the later chapters devoted to combats, spectacular exhibitions, and guild pageantry; and, without going into a lengthy definition of the term "theatrical" at this time, we shall reiterate the principle that focus and emphasis will be placed on those elements of entertainment and pageantry which lent a theatrical character to the festivities.

Music and Dance

Music played an important role in Ottoman culture and was employed for both serious and recreational purposes. The serious uses of music by the Ottomans were religious and military. Vocal and instrumental music formed a part of many

Ottoman religious ceremonials, despite certain Islamic restric­ tions, and particular guilds were active in the performance of sacred music. other music which may be classified as serious was that of the Ottoman military bands; these not only performed on ceremonial occasions, but also led the Ottoman troops into the thick of battle. From the time of Sultan Murad I onward, the sound of fifes and drums, together with cries of

"Allah, " spelled immediate attack to the enemies of the Turk.

l^See infra., pp. 202-03.

l^Evliya, pp. 233-34. 113

It is said that all the European nations have borrowed their military music from the Ottomans.

The use of music for recreational purposes was quite extensive; there were bands of musicians attached to the court, to noble households, and to the various guilds. Evliya lists over sixty-five categories of instrumentalists. 15 Like all the other professional entertainers, the musicians of Ottoman Istanbul flocked to the hippodrome to perform in the sur-i-humavun. As we have seen, bands of musicians formed part of the imperial processions which opened the public festivities. At the conclusion of Prince Mehmed's solemn entry on the second day, an enormous gathering of musicians was stationed across from the imperial kiosk; these were the massed army bands, who "performed without stopping, on small and large drums, trumpets, and fifes, during the whole celebration and whenever the Sultan stood at his window. " 16 This noisy aggregation may be compared to a pit orchestra of general accompaniment, providing introductory fanfares and background music for most of the major events of the festival—ceremonies, feasts, sports, and entertainments

l^Creasy, p. 23.

l^Evliya, pp. 232-40.

l^Haunolth, p. 470. 114 alike. Their music, like practically all of the music played during the festivities, struck the western observers as quite barbaric. The Ottoman instruments--wailing pipes, pounding drums, rattling tambourines, twanging lutes and screeching viols—were sounded with the vigourous heterophony and quarter- tone harmonic intervals characteristic of most oriental music, and the whole effect was not particularly lyric or subtle to the western ear.

Although the principal function of the music at the festival was one of accompaniment—even wrestling matches and horse races received musical accompaniment--certain guilds of musicians were represented by small ensembles which performed special concerts before the Sultan. Two of these select groups are shown in Figures 13 and 14. These pictures give some idea of the types of musical instruments employed during the festival.

In Figure 13, the musicians play upon string and percussion instruments; there are four tefler, or tambourines, three kinds of or lute, 17 and a small viol, or kemenc. As these musicians play before the Sultan, they are heard also by a dervis wearing an animal skin and by a nearly unveiled woman, a very rare

l^For the various kinds of Ottoman lutes and guitars, see Evliya, pp. 234-35. 115

Fig. 13. —Musicians before the Sultan. Surname of Murad IE. OSUTC Füm no. 1625, frame 200. 116 phenomenon indeed at an Ottoman public gathering. The musical ensemble is completed with a portable harp, or cenk. Figure 14 also shows the use of the harp, the lute, and the tambo-urines, but there are also some reed instruments. The two musicians in the upper part of the picture play reed-flutes, or nevler. while the two in the lower portion play upon miskallar. or pan-pipes. 18

Two of the janissary-guards stand by the group, and to the right of the musicians is the high knobbed mast which is mentioned in some of the textual sources but which is absent from all but a few of Osman's miniatures. 1^

One of the most characteristic activities of the small bands of musicians was the accompaniment of dancing. Several varieties of dances were performed at the festival, and for purposes of discussion, the following categories can be set up: religious dancing, erotic dancing, comic dancing, and folk or regional dancing. This last category played a fairly minor part in the festivities, and wül be discussed in a later chapter. 20

18see Ibid., pp. 225-40, for a general catalogue of most of the Ottoman musical instruments.

l%ee supra,, p. 64.

20see infra. . pp. 213-14. 117

Fig. 14, —Musicians before the Sultan. Surname of Murad m . OSXJTC Film no. 1625, frame 7. 118

The other kinds of dance, however, abounded at the s w -i-huniayun and provided a great deal of entertainment.

The religious dancing at the festival must really be consid­ ered more ceremony than entertainment; but we can observe that if the religious dancing was purely ceremonial and serious from the point of view of the participants, the spectators often found it a source of entertainment. This was the dancing of the various dervis orders--the celebrated "whirling . " There were a number of dervis orders which included a solemn devr, or rotation, in their mystical rites, but the most famous order is that of the Mevlevi, founded in the thirteenth century by the great

Turkish poet and mystic, Celalattin al-Rumi. The various dervis groups, religious bodies though they were, were not always viewed with unmixed veneration by the more orthodox

Muslims of the Ottoman empire, particularly with regard to the distinctive ritual practices of some of the mystical orders. The ritual turning of the Mevlevi dervisler. which carried its devoted executants into a state of dizzy ecstasy and collapse, was looked upon with some amusement by western observers, and even by some Ottoman Muslims who did not share the particular beliefs

21a good brief discussion of the dervisler can be found in And, Dance Perspectives. No. 3 (Summer, 1959), pp. 13-23. 119

of the dervisler. The mystical practices of some of the other

dervis orders was quite extreme; the Rifa'i dervisler. the

so-called "howling dervishes, " underwent self-torture and

mutilation which went beyond even that of the deliler, 22 and there were numerous wandering dervisler. the Kalenderiler, who

practically assumed the status of itinerant side-show entertainers

in that they made their living by displaying their somewhat repugnant rites before the public. 23 Thus it can be said about the dervisler that some of the orders' public displays were

entertainments as well as religious ceremonies. 24

Thus the dancing of the dervisler at the sur-i-hümâyun

of Murad HI was received both with some respect and with a

certain amount of irreverent amusement. That the Ottoman

attitude toward the dervis dance was not wholly serious can be

gathered from the fact that the dervis dancers shared the stage with secular dancers of an erotic character. Figure 15 shows

22see Gibb and Bowen, I, Pt. n, 196-97.

23ibid., p. 188. Also see Thomas W. Arnold, Painting in Islam (Oxford; The Clarendon Press, 1928), pp. 112-13, for interesting remarks on the wandering dervisler.

^“^In fairness it should be mentioned that not all the dervis orders engaged in public displays; some, like the Bektasi. were contemplative, and others, such as the Hamzavi and the Melami. practiced their rites in complete secrecy. 120

m m .

Fig. 15. —Dance performed by a Cengi and by a Mevlevi Dervis. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 193. 121 the simultaneous performance of the Mevlevi ritual and the frivolous dance of a professional dancing-boy, or cengi. The dervis performs his whirling dance to the music of two reed-flutes, and wears his characteristic long-sleeved coat and his high conical hat, or sikke. The fact that this hat is bound with a special turban, or destar, shows that the dervis was one of high rank. 25 The juxtaposition of this high holy man with an erotic dancer in

Osman's painting again seems to indicate that the mixture of the foolish with the solemn did not seem to jar the Turkish sensibility at the festivities.

The dancing-boy, or cengi. in the upper part of Figure 15 exemplifies a kind of dance for which the entire Middle East is famous. This is the lascivious, now playful, now languorous, posturing and turning which is sometimes called the "danse du ventre, " and which may be considered a forerunner of the present day strip-tease. 26 The boy cengi. who is dressed as a girl with a tight jacket and a long, flowing skirt, dances to the accompani­ ment of two tambourines, a viol, and a pan-pipe. In the dancer's

25see And, Dance Perspectives. No. 3 (Summer, 1959), pp. 14-15.

^^Ibid. , p. 24. 122 hands are the wooden clappers, called calpara, which performed the same rhythmical function as the castanets of Spanish dancers.

The performers of these erotic dances at public festivals were almost exclusively male. There were Ottoman dancing- girls, also called cengi. but these very rarely performed in public--it was considered almost unbearably indecent. The erotic attraction of the male cengi, however, was not wholly a matter of female impersonation, inasmuch as many Turkish men tended toward bisexuality in Ottoman times. 28 The young dancing-boys, moreover, did not always dress in female garb; in Figure 16, we see two boys who dance to the accompaniment of a small lute. They wear turbans and long coats with sashes at the waist. The dancer on the right keeps time with the calparalar, while the other waves two scarves. These dancing- boys in male attire were generally called koçekler. 29 the background in Figure 16 stands the three-tiered gallery filled with Ottoman lords and foreign visitors, and the group of spectators to the right of the dancers includes three veiled

27lbid.. pp. 24-32.

28see Stern, H, 34- 37, et passim.

20The word kbcek literally means "colt. " Other pet names were applied to the dancing boys, including tavsan. or "rabbit. " 123

Fig. 16. —Dance performed by Kocekler. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 414. 124 women. The two figures in the foreground nearest the obelisk are janissaries.

The erotic dances of the cenqUer and the kocekler were featured at most wedding and circumcision feasts, and were otherwise quite popular in the Ottoman empire. These dances are of interest for their close relation to the various kinds of theatrical entertainments of the period prior to the introduction of western European drama into Ottoman Turkey. It is difficult to speak of the erotic dance of the çenqüer without immediate reference to the comic dancing of the clowns and buffoons, or to dramatic performances, because the three kinds of entertainment were intimately connected. The erotic dance was related to the comic dance, which in turn was related to buffoonery in general, which in turn was practically inseparable from farce-acting.

This relationship of dance to buffoonery and acting will be further explored in the subsection of this chapter devoted to farce and buffoonery, but there are some considerations which should be taken up at this point, since they apply not only to the erotic dances but also the various other forms of Ottoman entertainments shown at the sur-i- humavun.

First of all, a point of terminology must be considered.

The Turkish word for the erotic dance of the cenqiler and 125 kocekler was ovun. The term ovun had several applications; it could mean "dance, " or "play, " or "game, " and it was used in connection with anything related to theatrics or sport—anything done histrionically, for fun, or in fun was oyun. A real battle was serious business for the Ottomans, but a mock-battle at a festival was kale-ovun. or "castle-play. " A javelin-fight per­ formed not in earnest but simply for sport or show was cirit-ovun. or "javelin-play. " The term ovun was also applied generally to comic dancing, buffoonery, and farce-acting. A comic play itself was ovun. and the Turkish theatrical and dramatic genre which developed in Ottoman times was called orta oyunu—" middle - SO play, " or "regiment-play. " Particularly interesting is the fact that the primitive seasonal rituals and mummings of the 31 Anatolian and Balkan peasants are also called ovun. In all, in spite of the very general nature of the term, it is provocative to consider the whole phenemenon of Ottoman theatrical tradition as springing from the concept of ovun, and of course it clearly

^^See infra.. p. 139.

^^See And, _A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, pp. 10, 53-61, et passim. 126 suggests the close interrelationship of dance, buffoonery and dramatic activity in the general area of Ottoman popular enter­ tainment.

Another, more palpable, factor which indicates the close relationship of Ottoman dance, buffoonery and dramatic per­ formance has to do with the organization of the troupes or guilds of entertainers. Evliya's listing of the entertainers' guilds shows that the circus-type entertainers such as rope-walkers, fire- eaters, and conjurers almost all had separate guilds according to their specialties, but that most of the dancers, buffoons and actors belonged to the same companies together. According to

Evliya, the "fools and mimes" of Istanbul were gathered into twelve companies, called Kol. The performers were all male, and some included acrobatics and jugglers' tricks in their list of skills. None of the performers was Turkish, since the profession of entertainer was considered somewhat immoral; the companies were Jewish, Greek, Armenian and Gypsy. The Greeks were the most prized as erotic dancers, and the Jews seem to have made a

32Evliya's phrase "su'bede-bazan yani mudhikan" is translated by von Hammer as "fools and mimics. " Cf. Evliya, pp. 240- 241 with the original Turkish in And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece, pp. 83-85. 127 specialty of the presentation of plays. Evliya's compilation of

1638 indicates that there were in all over 3,000 performers in these theatrical companies, but this is doubtless an exaggeration.

Concrete demonstrations of the relationship of the comic dancing and buffoonery to the erotic dancing can be found in the records of the s w -i-humayun of Murad HE. One good example is shown in Figure 17. As the cencfi dances in the foreground, two buffoons provide comic by-play; the buffoon on the left performs a ribald parody of the cengi's erotic posturing, creating a ridiculous contrast to the sensuality of the cengi. while the buffoon on the right "helps " the kemenc player in an obstructive and derisive manner. The principle involved in the act of the buffoon on the left—the comic incongruity between serious eroticism and farcical ribaldry--can be recognized as basically the same • as that used in comedies of Moliere, Shakespeare, and the

Italian commedia dell'arte.

But the comic dancing in the sur-i-humâyun involved much more than mocking parody or travesty; the clowns had dances which were distinctly their own. Most of these were varieties

33Evliya, p. 241.

^Ibid., pp. 240-41. 128

Fig. W. —Dancer, mtfôicïShya ns7 Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 421. 129 of what in England is referred to as the "morris-dance, " a great frenzied leaping and wild gesticulating which required more energetic abandon than graceful control. The very name of

"morris-dance" or "morisco" indicates the Middle Eastern origin of the dance, which evidently came to Europe by way of the Moors of North Africa. Haunolth refers again and again to

Ottoman performers, particularly Jews, doing "dances alia

Moresgua. as well as troupes of Arabs and Moors who per­ formed in similar fashion. These dances were generally performed by several dancers all going at once in frenetic fashion, full of "gamboldes, friskes and daunces, morisques, cryinges out, an such lyke vaine exercises.

The Ottoman term oyun would of course cover all this comic dancing, but there was a more specific term, curcuna. which would seem to apply. Curcuna refers to a "drunken

S^See And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. pp. 44-45. Of. NicoU, p. 161, where a sculpture of a turbanned morris-dancer done at Innsbruck in 1500 is depicted.

^%aunolth, p. 477, et passim.

^'^Ibid., pp. 477-78. The whole topic of the Arab per­ formers at this Ottoman festival would seem to be worth a study in itself. See infra. , pp. 158, 164.

^^Lebelski. 130 revel" dance performed by a group of buffoons, or by an entire theatrical company at the conclusion of a full performance of an

Orta Oyunu play, or as the last "act" of the three-hour variety

spectacle called oyun kolu. or "entire-company-play. The buffoon dance was also called by the name meskere, or maskara, which in Arabic means "clown.

One of these comic dances from the sur-i-humayim of

Murad m can be seen in Figure 18. To the accompaniment of

a lute and three tambourines, four buffoons are dancing. Three

of the buffoons perform a leaping, running sort of dance, while the fourth, in the foreground next to the serpent column, plays upon the wooden calparalar. Of particular interest here are the costumes of the dancers, for they represent a fairly basic or

standard Ottoman buffoon dress, and bear a strong resemblance to the costumes of the Byzantine mimes as depicted in the tenth- century Kiev frescoes. The three leaping dancers wear pointed fools' caps with little turned up brims, while the fourth dancer and the lute player wear fools' caps hung with bells. The buffoons wear

39And, Dance Perspectives. No. 3 (Summer, 1959), pp. 37-38.

^*^And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. p. 47.

^^See supra., p. 34. 131

Fig. 18. --Dance of Buffoons. S&name of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames 43, 258. 132 tight-fitting, long-sleeved jackets, belted at the waist, with an odd configuration of hangings below the belt; the tails of the jackets are long, but three of the costumes feature a peculiar triangular hanging in front. This particular feature was part of the afore­ mentioned Byzantine mime costume. The buffoons also wear knee breeches, and the three leaping ones wear ankle-high shoes or boots. This basic costume was evidently quite well suited to the wild leaps and tumblings of the various comic dances, as well as to a wide range of buffoons' tricks and comic routines; the short jacket and tight knee breeches in particular gave the performer a great deal of physical freedom, and this combination can be shown to have been used by clowns and comic actors in the secular theatre of Greece, Rome, the Byzantine empire, medieval western

Europe, and the renaissance in Italy and other parts of western and central Europe.

Buffoonery and Farce

The line dividing the Ottoman buffoonery from the comic dancing is, of course, almost wholly arbitrary, since the morris- dances and curcunalar not only came under the general category of oyun but also were included in the more specific classification

^2see NicoU, passim. 133

of güldürü, or buffoonery. Thus the comic dances were a kind of

buffoonery, and in many ways the short comic plays were con­

sidered guQjdi^, also. The various kinds of buffoons at the

sur-i-humavun of Murad HI danced, provided comic by-play both

verbal and physical, and acted in brief dramatic sketches or

farces. In all of this activity, the buffoonery was characterized

by coarse ribaldry bordering on obscenity, together with comic turns involving the most obvious physical humour of the slapstick

variety.

A tone of slapstick humour was set at the festival even

before the entry of the troupes of professional mimes and clowns.

The presence of a few individual cengiler and their comic dancing

counterparts in the imperial procession of prince Mehmed has

already been noted, but of more comic interest at the opening

of the festivities was the company of the tulumciLar. These

buffoons, as has been noted, were employed to keep the crowds

in line with their inflated pigskinsbut their duties also included

^^And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. pp. 41-71.

^^See supra,, pp. 79-81.

^%ee supra. . pp. 87-89. 134 the comic amusement of the spectators. In the early days of the festival, the tulumcilar established their roles as entertainers by staging a vast, comic combat in which the several hundred clowns frolicked about the hippodrome, drubbing one another with their greasy tulumlar. Later on in the festivities the tulumcilar staged more of these comic altercations, and otherwise amused the crowds by providing peripheral comic horseplay, much in the same manner as do the clowns at a modern circus or rodeo.

Whereas the tulumcilar had a dual purpose, the troupes of professional buffoons and actors had but one—to entertain and create laughter in their audience. The entry of one of the troupes brought forth the following description from one of the western observers:

. . . presentlie followed of Players, more in number than flyes or gnattes, one sort masking- wise, other some having Myters, like Popes, and : balde, and halfe shaven, theyr visages of all most strange: with Goates beards, theyr mouths -wide open . . . now these proper youthes, these naughtie packes, being once come into the Parke, they beganne to crye out, to snort, and laye on loade uppon the pales, and uppon the kettelles, pottes, arid pannes, platters and basons, stryking uppon little bells, childrens and cymballes, with a most straunge and confused

46Haunolth, p. 471. 135

noyse, intermixed with daunces, and theyr most horrible and dissolute behaviors, for they made mockes and mowes, and gyrned at as many as laughed at theyr follies, and they never ceased to turne and tumble about. . . .

This description vividly communicates a sense of what the

Ottomans referred to as a curcuna. or drunken revel, of an entire company of buffoons and dancers.

An entry of a group of these buffoons is depicted in

Figure 19. The leading clown, on the left, is remarkable both for his costume and his gait. His jacket, fools' cap and sleeves seem to be decorated with small bells or a kind of ball-fringe, and he also seems to be wearing a mask, or rather a half-mask which covers the eyes and nose and cheeks but not the mouth or chin. Although this mask is difficult to make out in the black and white reproduction of this Surname painting, the color originals clearly show the use of masks; also, the large nose is an indication of a mask—throughout the Surname. Osman represents unmasked faces with tiny, almost non-existent noses, and masked ones with huge, hooked noses. ^8 The odd posturing of the leading

^^Lebelski.

48gee United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Turkey: Ancient Miniatures, color plate XIX. 136

Fig. 19.—Entry of a group of Buffoons. SÛmame of Murad IE. OSÜTC Film no. 1625, frame 346. 137 clown is undoubtedly meant to be comic, and it would seem that

Osman was trying to capture the kind of ridiculous gait which von Haunolth describes as . . such strange jumping, dancing, and other gestures with his stomach, which he pulled in and out, and also he threw his behind from side to side so that it was positively disgusting to look at; yet it pleased some of the noble

Turks who laughed on his account and praised him.

The other buffoons in Figure 19 are also of some interest.

The two figures following the leading buffoon do not seem to be dancing or posturing; one, with a white turban around the base of his fools' cap and along, unbuffoonlike coat, carries a tambourine or gong, while the other carries a vase which was doubtless a property to be used in some comic turn or sketch.

The two dancing clowns in the foreground hole tambourines or gongs, and the small buffoon in the right-hand part of the picture is one of the tulumcilar. with his inflated tulum slung over his shoulder. Behind the buffoons is a rather curious figure--a dervis on stilts. This could be one of the performing dervisler. but it is somewhat more likely that the figure represents a buffoon wearing the habit of a dervis, not only because of the

49saunolth, p. 477. 138 turban which suggests a high ranking dervis. but also because the coat and sleeves are ridiculously long and seem to have been designed with the stilts in mind. The sight of a buffoon on stilts trying to imitate the sacred devr of one of the dervis orders would no doubt have been funny to some, if not all, members of the audience.

In connection with the coarseness and obscenity of the

Ottoman buffoonery, it is interesting to note here the suggestion of the so-called phallephoric costumes. The phallus as a comic symbol is found in the Greek and Roman mimes, the early comme dia dell'arte, and the Arabic and Turkish shadow-plays.

Thus it is worth mentioning that in the painting reproduced in

Figure 19, someone, probably not Osman, has scribbled crude phalli on some of the buffoons; this has been done in a few of the other Surname pictures which depict buffoonery and farce.

We are once more reminded of the general similarity between some of the Ottoman entertainments and the classical mimes, at least insofar as some external aspects are concerned.

% ee Nicoll, pp. 21-26, 141-42, et passim. Also see Jacob M. Landau, Studies in the Arab Theatre and Cinema (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958), pp. 11-29. 139

Some references have already been introduced which suggest the participation of the buffoons in dramatic performances.

Some elaboration on this topic would be worth-while at this point, in order to clarify what will be later discussed as "farces, "

"comic interludes, " or "comic sketches. " It should be made clear at the outset that all buffoons were not actors, nor were all the actors buffoons. There were a number of Ottoman terms for "clown" or "buffoon, " including zuhuri. maskara. muthikan. and nekre. But there were also several fairly distinct terms which referred to various kinds of performers in dramatic activity.

There are two kinds of performers, the meddah and the mukallit, which merit some attention here.

The meddah was primarily a histrionic story teller, perhaps the descendant of the Roman pantomimus. or player of many parts. Usually a solo performer, the meddah would both narrate a story and impersonate all the characters in the story.

Changes of characters would sometimes be indicated by a change of headgear, and the meddah used two properties, a wand and

5lThe term su'bet-bazan. which von Hammer translates as "fools" in Evliya, p. 240, really carries a seductive, alluring connotation which leads one to think the term refers to the dancing boys rather than to the buffoons. 140 a scarf, for a multiplicity of theatrical effects. Meddahlar were kept by the Sultans, and were popular in taverns and coffee­ houses. These story teller actors were perhaps the most polished and elegant of all the Ottoman theatrical performers, and their story repertoires included serious subjects along with the comic.

Mukallit is a somewhat more general term than meddah, and refers to an "imitator" or "mimic. " The term was sometimes used in reference to puppet-showmen, but mukallit can also be applied to the members of the theatrical troupes who were actors rather than erotic dancers or buffoons. The chief skill of the mukallit was something called taklit, or mimicry, which was one of the fundamental elements of all

Ottoman theatrical expression, whether in dance, buffoonery, farce, or puppetry, or even the story telling. Taklit refers to the basic act of mimicry or imitation which lies at the foundation of all dramatic art. When a performer engaged in mimicking

any type of character, or even an animal or bird, this was taklit; ovun was a general term which referred to the whole

52por a discussion of the meddah, see And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, pp. 28-31. 141 sense of play, but it was the concept of taklit which bound together the histrionic entertainers of the Ottoman empire, which separated them from the rope-walkers and jugglers, whose performances were oyun but not taklit.

The foregoing brief digression devoted to terminology has been deemed necessary because of the somewhat unclear pic­ ture of Ottoman dramatic activity which is to be gained from the various bits of evidence describing dramatic performances at the sur-i-hiimAyun of Murad IH. It seems quite evident that _ . the full-fledged Turkish theatrical genre. Orta Ovunu. had not yet developed by 1582, and that the little farces or sketches which were performed at the sw -i-humAvm represent rudimen­ tary precursors of that later, more fully developed form of theatre which first received the name Orta Ovunu in the early nineteenth century. ^

The evidences of farce performances at the festivities of 1582 are far from extensive, but the combination of western textual descriptions with Ottoman iconographieal evidence makes for what amounts to a relatively reliable and satisfactory

53see ibid.. pp. 22-23.

^Ibid., p. 39. 142 basis for establishing the nature and appearance of these very- early forms of Ottoman drama, and of the kinds of performers who did the acting in these farces. The discussion of these simple farces will be followed by a consideration of the various kinds of puppet-shows presented at the festival, and in a later chapter, some quasi-dramatic entertainments of a spectacular character will be described.

The textual sources are generally laconic in their treatment of the farces. The Ottoman texts contain some brief descriptions of performances by lu'bet-bazlar. but most of these seem to have been puppet-plays or shows. The term lu'bet-baz could also refer to "player" or "actor, " however, and there are a few places in the Surname texts where the author seems to refer to actors when he speaks of lu'bet-bazlar. The Ottoman palace document which mentions some of the player companies is not of much help in arriving at an idea of what the farce-performers were like, but it does make reference to "the company of Jewish players, " along with several kinds of puppet-troupes. Most of the

55see infra,. pp. 202-27.

5%ee And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. p. 45.

^'^Cemaat-i oyuncu vahudiler. Topkapi Arçivi Document D. 10022. For discussion of the puppet-troupes, see infra., pp. 155-65. 143 western accounts are even less helpful, for some make no mention at all of the farces, while some others only attest to the existence of some kind of dramatic activity at the festival. Palerne, for example, mentions only that he witnessed "comedies, et tragedies mefLees de danses, " and fails to explain what he meant by the phrase.

By far the most helpful of the textual accounts for its treatment of the farces is that by von Haunolth, which contains numerous references to the farce-performances, but unfortunately, even this source tends to be somewhat vague and general in its descriptions. Whereas von Haunolth has left us some very choice and detailed accounts of the various puppet-shows and the several quasi-dramatic spectacular exhibitions, his treatment of the little farces consists of a series of brief, passing references, GO which can be summarized in a few sentences:

There were a number of plays, which the German visitor refers to with the phrase spiel oder comedia, that were performed at the festival, usually in the evening, and under the open sky.

58palerne, p. 486.

^%ee infra., pp. 162-65, 202-27.

®*^Haunolth's references to the farces are found on pp. 473, 476-78, 480, 482, 501, and 504 of his account. 144

The plays were mostly performed by Jewish troupes, although one

Arab performance is mentioned, and the performers sometimes wore masks. The action in some of the plays involved the relation­ ship of a master, an old man, to his comic servant, who is referred to at one point as a zanni. And, there is some indication of the use of animal disguisings in the performances.

The above set of statements, limited though they are, do imply similarities between the Ottoman farces and the classical mimes, the comme dia dell'arte, the later Orta Oyunu. and, with respect to the use of animal disguisings, to the rustic rites and mummings of the Turkish peasants. Yet it must be admitted that von Haunolth's account gives only a general and somewhat murky view of the Ottoman farces at the sûr-i-hümayun of Murad lEL

There are, however, some miniatures from the Surname which can perhaps shed some light on the subject, if not produce an entirely lucid picture of this dramatic activity. In Figure 20, the entry of a troupe of mimes is shown, and this troupe seems to

^^Ibid. , p. 478. This performance by Arabs, evidently in the Arabic language, is of significance inasmuch as there are no records of the existence of a native Arab farce during this period. See Landau, pp. 23-27.

®%aunolth, p. 502.

GSlbid., p. 477. Fig. 20. —Entry of a Troupe of Mimes. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 207. CJ1 146 include several different kinds of histrionic performers. In the painting to the left, we see nine performers whose costumes do not resemble buffoons' costumes but which at the same time bear very little resemblance to ordinary Ottoman dress. These enter­ tainers carry decorated wands, and four of them have narrow white scarves wrapped about their necks. Two of the performers wear off pointed hats, and one of these seems to be wearing a mask. In the painting to the right, six additional performers are shown.

Only one of them carries a wand. Of particular interest in this grouping is the performer who is riding on a donkey, and the two buffoons who appear just in front of the donkey, on the ground to the left of the donkey. One of these two buffoons wears a somewhat modified clown-costume, with a very high, conical cap wrapped with a turban at the base; the other wears a more standard buffoon-costume, and performs a comic dance. Both this clown and the performer on the donkey wear masks. The man on the donkey is wrapped in a large shawl or cape, and wears a very unusual tiered hat or . This scene depicted by Osman seems to correspond to Lebelski's description of the last portion of the tumultous parade of the players:

Moreover, these aforenamed players had among themselves, as it were, a cheefe Captaine, which was an olde man, the most villaine, and arrantest 147

knave of all the whole company: and he fore- soothe was set uppon and asse, the which three young merchaunt men about crouches, and gyrded about with a lynnen cloath, and halfe naked, went before, holding him up uppon staves.

About this off scene of ambulatory buffoonery we can only remark that it must somehow adumbrate the old man cum comic servant relationship in the farces, and also that there are scenes in later Ottoman festival-books which almost exactly duplicate this situation. - In the Surname- i- Behbi of the early eighteenth century, the old chief of the players, riding a donkey and surrounded by buffoon-servants, again brings up the rear of the parade of the entertainers at an Ottoman festival. Without pressing the point any further, it can be mentioned that this spectacle is somehow reminiscent of the "lord of misrule" or "king of fools" tradition at festivals and carnivals in medieval and renaissance

Europe.

The decorated wands carried by the performers in the painting to the left in Figure 20 are also seen in later Ottoman

64Lebelski. The term "merchaunt" is most likely a transla­ tion of the French "méchant"; the Lebelski account was first published in French. See And, Forum. Xm, No. 166 (March 1, 1961), 22.

®^Seyyid Huseyn Vehbi, Surname-i-Vehbi. 148 festival-books and court albums which depict entertainers, and it is evident that these wands, or de^ekler, served as emblems of the professional players as they paraded before the spectators and the Sultan. During performances, the wands could be used as properties for comic effect, like slapsticks, or juggled, like

Indian clubs.

It is evident there are at least three different kinds of histrionic performers depicted in Figure 20. The narrow scarves hung about the shoulders of four of the performers in the left-hand painting seem to indicate that these four are meddahlar. or story-tellers. Then, there are the masked and clownishly dressed performers who can be classified as buffoons, and the remaining performers are most probably actors, or mukallitler. As has been mentioned, the meddahlar usually performed solo, but the actors and the buffoons often played together in the little farces.

Figure 21 depicts some of this farce activity taking place beneath the kiosk of Sultan Murad. It can be seen that the costumes of the performers range from the completely buffoon­ like to the fairly realistic, that is, resembling the dress of

GGlbid.

^"^See And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. pp. 94-95. 149

Fig, 21. —Farce Performances before the Sultan. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 132. 150 ordinary Ottoman citizens. It is apparent that the painting depicts four rather separate actions or groupings, and it may well be that the artist has chosen to portray in one panel several scenes which may have actually occurred in sequence; or, it may be that Osman chose to compress space rather than time, and that the painting represents four different little sketches taking place in separate parts of the festivai-grounds.

The appearance of the actors is of interest both from the point of view of costuming and of action. The costumes of the two bearded characters who bow to each other in the upper left part of the scene closely resemble that of the stock character Kavuklu in the later Orta Ovunu. while the costumes of the three performers in the upper right area seem to be similar to the stock comic of the

Orta Oyunu who was called Nekre. The appearance of the figures in the lower part of the painting also recall characters from the Orta

Ovunu—there are four buffoons, called Zuhuri in the later, fully developed Orta Ovunu. and a dwarf, or Cuce. who was always an indispensable part of Orta Ovunu productions. Once again, the crudely scribbled phalli are seen on some of the characters.

Although the action shown in these little scenes is far from self-explanatory, a few observations and inferences can be made.

68por these costume matters, see Martinovitch, passim. 151

In general, it can be observed that these scenes conform to the staging principles of the later Orta Oyunu in that they use no raised stage or background of any kind, and that the individual scenes or actions involve only groups of two, three, or four characters. This last convention is said to have been shared by the Orta Oyunu and the puppet-drama form called Karajcroz.

More particularly, the action in the upper left seems to show the polite confrontation of two men who are attended by servants, while the little scene in the upper right seems to show two characters whose conversation has just been interrupted by a third. The action in the lower right simply shows a sort of clownish teasing between two buffoons, but the scene to the left of the serpent-column is a bit more involved. It would seem that the two buffoons have done something to incur the wrath of the character in the turban, and as the dwarf-servant looks on, the angry character is threatening the buffoons with a stick while the clowns teasingly smile at his efforts and dance about. If the assumption that the angry character's costume is that of a dignified person of some status is correct, then it can be con­ cluded that what is shown here is the age-old comic teasing of a higher class master by a lower class servant-down which has

69lbid., pp. 19-21. 152 always been a part of popular farce, from the Greeks through the commedia dell'arte to the present day--witness the relationship of, say. Bugs Bunny to Elmer Fudd. Surely this timeless popular theme lies at the base of the more intellectual literary and artistic tendency characterized by the slogan épater is bourgeoise.

A variation on this theme of derision and teasing is shown in two related Swname paintings which appear as Figures 22 and

23. In Figure 22, as the Sultan and two janissaries look on, one buffoon plays a tambourine while another is balancing a large turban on his behind. In the background, two bare-headed but otherwise well-dressed characters appear to be in a state of some agitation; one holds his turban in an upraised hand, while another turban lies at the feet of the other character. The character on the left seems to be imploring while the one on the right appears to be threatening. The two bare-headed characters seem to be involved with each other rather than with the buffoons.

In Figure 23, however, the focus of the scene shifts entirely to the one buffoon who balances two turbans on his behind; the other buffoon continues to play his tambourine, while the two bare­ headed characters seem to be imploring the buffoon to give them their turbans back. The position of the turbans on the buffoon 153

a#

Fig. 22. — name of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 137. 154

Fig. 23. —Farce iurad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 351. 155 seems to imply something about the intelligence or character of the two bare-headed ones.

For lack of any detailed textual explanation, these scenes are open to varied interpretations, but the most probable conjecture is this: in Figure 22, two moments in time are represented. The two bare-headed ones have been engaged in a dispute with each other which has developed into a fight in which turbans are knocked off or snatched; while the two dis­ putants quarrel with each other, the buffon runs in, grabs a fallen turban and performs his derisive trick with it. Later on, then, in Figure 23, the buffoon has both turbans, and the two disputants no longer quarrel with each other but implore the buffoon to return their headgear. The turbans themselves are a clue to the effect and meaning of this bit of comic action; they seem to be Persian turbans and inasmuch as the Persians were cordially despised by most of the Ottoman spectators, the teasing by the buffoon and his little trick on the two Persians no doubt

created a good deal of derisive laughter at the expense of the

Persians. In a later chapter, it wül be shown how the 156

Christians also became the butts of the scornful laughter of their Ottoman hosts.

The foregoing interpretations of the Swname scenes, conjectural and open to modification as it is, is unfortunately as close as the sources permit to a reconstruction of the action in any of the farce-performances at the stir-i-hümÈyun. Some basic ideas about the costuming, staging, characters, situa­ tions, comic business, and general tone of these little plays, however, have been established with a fair degree of certainty.

Puppetry Performances

Whereas the textual sources provide only the most meagre information about the farce-performances, the Surname and von Haunolth texts provide relatively abundant references to various kinds of puppetry performances. Several descriptions by von Haunolth in particular are quite vivid and complete, and permit a clear and fairly detailed picture of the puppetry at the festival to be formed.

The puppetry tradition of the Islamic Middle East dates from the eleventh century, and its complex history has received

70see infra. , p. 225. 157 a great deal of scholarly study. ]h Ottoman Turkey, the influence of the Arab shadow-theatre and the tradition of the classical mimes combined to form the Turkish Karagoz drama, which became popular throughout the Middle East and the Balkans, and which is without question the most widely known form of middle eastern theatrical entertainment.

It should be pointed out, however, that the Karagoz shadow- theatre was only one of several kinds of puppet entertainments which flourished in the Ottoman empire, and that there are examples of a number of these different kinds described in the sources for the sûr-i-hümayun of Murad IE. In fact, it is interesting to note that in all these kinds of puppetry per­ formances which are recorded as having taken place at the festivities of 1582, there is not any definite evidence of the

Karagoz form as such.

Some indication of the variety of the puppet entertainments can be gathered from two Ottoman documents which list players

71see the bibliographies in Landau, pp. 217-29, and in And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey. pp. 139-44.

^^%ee Hellmut Ritter, Karagoz. Turkische Schattenspiele (Weisbaden: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, 1953). 158 and player-companies. The more comprehensive of these two documents is that from the Seyahatname of Evliya Çelebi.

Evliya's listing indicates three basic categories of what may be generally referred to as puppetry, and he mentions four classes of performers who were engaged in presenting puppet- entertainments. The first of the categories is that of the shadow-theatre, and this kind of puppetry was presented by the sebbazan. or night-players, and mukallitler, or mimics.

This was the theatrical medium used by the Karagoz drama; the puppets were flat translucent leather figures which were held up against a screen and lighted from behind. The second basic category mentioned by Evliya is that of the magic-lantern shows, which were presented by the haval-tassvircivan. or image-theatre players with painted figures. Evidently this kind of entertainment involved projecting images against a curtain or other flat surface. Evliya's third category is a rather broad one which evidently refers to any of several types of three-dimensional, doll-like puppets; the performers are referred to as the kukla-baz. or puppet-players.

73Evliya's passages on puppetry are to be found on pp. 229 and 243-44 of von Hammer's translation. 159

A second pertinent Ottoman document is the listing of player-companies at the sur-i-hümâyun of Murad HE which is preserved in the Ottoman palace archives. This document con­ tains four general headings which seem to cover different troupes of puppet-showmen. The terminology is somewhat recondite, but can be made somewhat clear by references to the categories of Evliya, and by evidence from the Surname and the account by von Haunolth. The first heading in the palace document lists the company of the suret-bazan. or figure-players; this could refer to either shadow-theatre or, perhaps, some kind of magic-lantern show. Another heading lists the hayal-i has, or special-shadow- theatre; this probably indicates that the company was the special private company of the Sultan. Another company listed is that of the hayal- i-zilcivan. or shadow-theatre-players; this probably refers to the fairly common form of shadow-theatre associated with the Karagoz—at least this is the way Evliya uses the term hayal-i-zil7^ The most unclear term applied to a player-company

in the palace-document is the phrase cemaati-piyade cadirlari. literally mef^.mg the "company of pedestrian tents. " This company

evidently included several different kinds of puppet-showmen, but

'^'^Ibid., p. 244. 160 the "pedestrian tents" seems to indicate the use of portable or moving puppet-booths.

The Surname texts make a number of references to the per­ formances of havalcilar, or shadow-players, and lu'bet-bazlar, or players, and the texts give descriptions of their performances which clearly indicate that they were shadow-theatre entertainments.

Some of these were given by the Ottoman troupes, but there were also some Arab shadow-theatre performances. However, for an explanation of the phrase "pedestrian tents, " the Simname paintings are fai* more helpful than the texts. Two of these paint­ ings, supported by descriptions by von Haunolth, seem to indicate a performance which was remarkable in that it combined shadow- puppetry with the performances of live actors.

Figure 24 shows one of the "pedestrian tents, " or portable puppet-booths. Neither the screen nor the puppets can be seen, but it is apparent from the size and shape of the tent that it could prob­ ably be moved along by the puppet operator himself, from inside the booth. It will be noted that a cengi is dancing near the booth, to

^ topkapi Sarayi Argivi Document D. 10022. Also see the discussion in And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, pp. 31-32. '^^Lokman, m Murat Swnamesi. pp. 44 a-b; 45 a-b; 122a; 188a - 189a, describes performances of shadow-plays by lu'bet- bazlar. 161

Fig. 24. —Port Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, 162 the accompaniment of a tambourine and a pan-pipe, and that at the base of the tent, to the right, is a small decorated pitcher on a stand. In Figure 25, a similar puppet-booth is shown beneath the Sultan's kiosk, and the booth is surrounded not only by janis­ saries, who look on, but by four entertainers, at least two of which seem to be engaged in some sort of action or dialogue. The performer to the left of the booth is obviously a cencfi. but he is not shown to be dancing. The performer to the right of the booth wears the same small cap as does the cencfi. but it would seem that this is no dancing-boy, but a young actor. He wears a brief skirt which is opened at the front to reveal knee-breeches, and he also wears a small beard. To the left of the puppet-booth stands another decorative vase, and in the background, against the palace wall, is a small stand on which has been place a folded coat and a turban.

The two Surname paintings shown in Figures 24 and 25 seem somewhat enigmatic; they do give an idea of what the "pedestrian tents" looked like, but the presence of actors, theatrical properties 77 in the form of decorated vases, and spare costumes, all surround­ ing the puppet-booths, indicates some kind of entertainment besides mere puppetry. It would seem that these paintings attempt to depict

'^'^Various decorated jugs, pitchers and vases were used as properties not only by Ottoman actors, but by buffoons and conjurers as well. See supra., p. 135, where a buffoon is shown carrying one of these common properties. 163

I

Fig. 25. —Portable Booth, Cenoi and Actor. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 42. 164

a performance involving both puppets and live performers, possibly

a special sort of combination presentation which would help the

shadow-theatre, which was usually an intimate theatrical medium to be enjoyed by a small audience indoors, to adapt to the particu­ lar conditions of the vast festival situation.

Two textual sources help to explain the two Swname paintings of puppet-booths. One of these is from the text of the

Simname itself. During one description of a shadow-theatre

performance by lu'bet-bazlar. Lokman mentions that at the same time there was a "little conversation" (kalbi saj^mi) involving

"affable dancing-boys" (su'bede-nuvaz). all to the accompaniment

of "uproarious music" (arbede- saz). This passage seems to relate to the scenes shown in Figures 24 and 25, as well as to the

following description by von Haunolth:

A small hut there was, in which there played, in 2 a very fine and gay manner, small little men (puppets as one calls them), by talking and jumping about; and among other things, they also performed a whole marriage ceremony, in which there also entered some Turkish boys, who always clapped their small pieces of wood and danced; and then they joined in with the puppets and treated them as if they were alive and could see everything. Through tliis, they wanted to create some entertainment, and wanted to make

78Lokman, lEE Murat Smnamesi. p. 188a, 165

believe that these were no puppets, but were actually alive.

These textual descriptions seem to make clear that performances were given at the festival which combined puppetry with live dancers and actors. Thus in Figure 24 the puppetry is augmented by the dancing of the cencfi. and in Figure 25 the cenqi and some actors engage in a little play which probably deals with the marriage ceremony mentioned by von Haunolth. The cenqi. with hands modestly folded, probably plays the bride, while the young actor to the right of the booth plays the role of the groom.

Some necessary properties stand ready to be used, as do some costume items for the actor playing the part of the Muslim moHa who would otEiciate at the wedding. Such a spectacle involving several live actors and dancers as well as the puppets was probably more effective than an ordinary puppet-show in the festival situation.

There were, however, other puppet performances at the sm*- i-hum^un which seem to have done without the aid of any live actors or dancers. One of these, using also a portable tent or booth, involved spectacular visual effects but no dialogue. This show is mentioned

^Haunolth, p. 481. 166 in the Surname texts, but Haunolth's description is more vivid:

. . . one pushed a scaffolding or stage onto the square, which was on six wheels and was boarded up with shutters. It had up front only a white linen screen, but inside there were several lights. There, a man depicted with the shadow that several figures threw on account of the lights on the linen screen, how a cat eats a mouse and how a stork eats a snake. He also depicted how two persons pointed and talked to each other, like the deaf people do it. He also depicted how one person hunted and stalked, etc.

The Surname texts mention other actions in this spectacle, those in which a man eats and bobs his head, a sMp sails, and a dragon

(eider) swallows up people. The Surname further mentions that the show was presented by two arabs, and this might account for the fact that there was no dialogue. 81 Earlier in the festival, the Arab performers had played a farce in their own language, but the show was poorly received because many in the audience op could not understand the language. Aside from the language handi­ cap, however, the Arab puppeteers evidently gave a very pleasing show because their manipulation of the shadow-figures was more

^ Ib id .. p. 489.

B^See Lokman, HI Murat Surnamesi, pp. 44a-45b.

®%aunolth, p. 478. 167 skillful and deceptive than that of the native per­ formers.

Other puppetry performances at the sûr-i-hümayun of

Murad in used three-dimensional, doll-like puppets, or kuklalar, rather than shadow-figures. Some enormous puppet­ like devices were shown at the festival, but these were not really considered kuklalar. and wül be described in a later chapter. The word kukla could refer to a doll as well as to a puppet, and it is evident that most of the three-dimensional

Ottoman puppets were the size of a large doll or a ventriloquist's dummy. In fact, many of the performances involving the kuklalar made use of ventriloquism. Haunolth mentions performers who made their appearance carrying puppets, or having puppets slung around their necks; these performers would then give a show in which they talked with their puppets. In this regard, it is inter­ esting to note that Evliya lists the kukla-baz in the same listing with various kinds of conjurers and sleight-of-hand artists.

G^Ibid.. p. 489. 84 See infra,. pp. 204-207.

®haunolth, p. 502.

®®Evliya, p. 229. 168

Evidently ventriloquism was one of the principal skills of the

Ottoman kukla-baz. There were, however, some other minor entertainments at the festival which made use of these doll-like puppets; one of the Ottoman documents mentions the use of these doll-like puppets; one of the Ottoman documents mentions the use of the avak kuklasi. or foot-puppet, 87 and this evidently referred to a kind of show in which an operator made one or more little puppets dance on the ground, controlling them with his foot. 88

One very interesting performance involving kuklalar made use of a special mechanical device to manipulate various kinds of puppet-figures. This is described by von Haunolth:

Another man brought a thing onto the square that was about an ell in height and width and was surrounded with red cloth. He set himself in front of it and pulled and pushed with his feet at it, so that on top all kinds of strange figures appeared: they were little men, birds and animals, etc., all of them only appearing for the top half of their bodies, and they jumped and sprange back and forth . . . 89

8?Topkapi Sarayi Argivi Document D. 10022.

88see And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, pp. 32-33.

89Haunolth, p. 497. 169

The fact that the operator used his feet suggests a possible referent for the term avak kuklasi, but the contrivance here described is much more elaborate than the ordinary foot- puppet show. The Swname- i-Vehbi of the early eighteenth century mentions the use of a similar device, in which the manip­ ulators were concealed underneath the puppets, but even more similar is a device described in an English book of the early seventeenth century.

Although the puppetry-perform ances at the sur-i-hümÈvun of Murad HE are described in much more detail in the textual sources than the farce performances, it must be admitted that a few more pieces of iconographieal evidence from the Surname might have provided welcome clarification. Only the two of Osman,'s paintings, however, Figures 24 and 25 of this study, bear a definite relation to puppetry, and even these show only the booths and not the puppets themselves. Osman's failure to depict the puppets remains a matter for speculation.

One of the miniatures by Osman is of some interest for its possible indirect or even direct relationship to the puppetry at the

GOgee And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 32.

Glgee John Bate, The Mysteries of Nature and Art (London: Thomas Harper for Ralph Mab, 1635), pp. 83-84. 170 festival, and the painting is worth discussing here as an appendage to the foregoing discussion of puppetry. This painting is reproduced as Figure 26, and it depicts a number of figures standing beneath the kiosk of Sultan Murad. Eight of the figures appear in ordinary

Ottoman dress, and three others appear to be dervisler with their high, conical hats. One of the dervisler seems to be dancing, while the other two engage in some dialogue. Of most interest, however, are the two pale figures who stand directly underneath the imperial kiosk. They are engaged in dialogue and are watched by four spectators. The two figures wear masks and distinctive crowned turbans, and both of them are extraordinarily large, not only in height but particularly in the size of their faces and heads.

The position of the two figures, and the fact that they are wearing masks, would seem to indicate that they are almost cer­ tainly actors of some kind, but there is something about their general aspect which sets them apart from the other actors pictured in the

Surname. The size of their bodies alone is not too unusual, since

Osman frequently depicts the important figures in a scene as being somewhat oversize; this is a very old convention in oriental

art. The exceptional size of their heads, however, is quite unusual

—far larger in proportion to their bodies than even Osman's not too precise anatomical canons would allow. A possible explanation 171

Fig. 26. —Actors name of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 76. 172 which can be put forth is that the enormous heads are not the actors' own, but are very large masks which cover not just the top of the face, but the entire head. The painting itself seems to lend some credence to this view--the figures are not clearly delineated, but a very careful examination of the figure to the left wül reveal that there is a faint, curved line which runs from the base of the small beard down to below the neckline and then up to the base of the turban at the back of the neck. This line seems to be an indication that the actor's mask covers the whole head, and implies the same about the other actor, whose mask is the larger of the two.

If these large heads were masks, as the Surname miniature seems to indicate, then this alone would make the two figures unlike any ordinary Ottoman farce-players in appearance, and imply some special histrionic effect or form was being attempted.

The enormous masks remove the actors from reality, as does also the uniformly pale aspect of the costumes, one of which seems definitely padded. If the assumption that such large masks would have to be light-weight is correct, then the masks could easüy be bobeed up and down by the actors; and the spectacle of these actors with their strange pale costumes and enormous heads in motion suggests nothing else but a rigid, mechanical effect which would be comic but also quite puppet-like in appearance. 173

The contention here that the two actors are dressed as

puppets is based primarily on the size of the masks and the prob­

able effect which the masks would give to the moving actors, but there are other bits of evidence to support this conjectural view.

First, the costumes worn by the actors, aside from the paleness which on a masked actor would suggest some mreal thing rather than a flesh and blood human being, are of the same general shape

as those worn by most Turkish shadow puppets of the main stock

characters in the Karagoz drama. The actors wear tunics which are belted at the waist and reach to just below the knee.

Second, the protruding left hand of the actor on the left makes that

actor's profile exactly like that of a flat shadow puppet. It will

be noted that almost nowhere else in the Surname does Osman

depict a hand in just that puppet-like position. The hand itself is

at least two to three times larger than any other hand in the picture.

The position and size of the hand seem to imply that the painter

deliberately stressed the puppet-like aspects of the actors by

depicting them in postures straight from the shadow-theatre screen.

Third, a bit of external evidence can be brought to bear. It is

known that in 1675, a company of Ottoman farce actors gave a

live performance in imitation of the EaragSz shadow-theatre

92see Martinovitch, passim. 174

QQ performances, ° and it is not too unreasonable that a similar experiment might have been tried less than a century earlier.

This sort of performance would not only provide novelty per se to the entertainments, but would represent once more an attempt to adapt the intimate shadow-theatre medium to the circumstance of the festival in the hippodrome.

In concluding the discussion of the puppetry performances, mention can be made of the fact that most of the puppet shows at the s w - i-humayun seem to have relied strongly on visual effects rather than verbal. This tendency was shared to a certain degree by the farce-players as well, and seems to reflect a fairly universal principle among professional performers to try to adapt to specific playing conditions for the most effective possible performances.

Tumblers and Equilibrists

The dance, buffoonery and dramatic performances at the sur-i-humavun of Murad m shared the stage with various minor entertainments of anon-histrionic character, those of the sort which still flourish at circus and carnival shows. Ottoman

^^And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 39. 175

Tiirkey was known "above all the regions of the Earth, " for its excellent tumblers and mountebanks, and the western witnesses to the festivities of 1582 all express a sense of genuine astonish­ ment at the skill of the Ottoman performers. These performers flocked to the hippodrome in prodigious numbers, and their per­ formances reflected a seemingly infinite variety of special skills.

The following discussion of these performances wül focus upon several selected, representative examples of these entertainments which so amazed the western spectators.

Evliya's listing of the entertainers' guilds seems to indicate that the various circus-type performers generally had their own companies which were separate from those of the dancers, buffoons and actors. All these non-histrionic performers are discussed by Evliya as belonging to the general class of the

TPehlivanlar. The word pehlivan more specifically refers to a

"hero" or "champion" in some athletic endeavor such as wrestling or archery, but Evliya applies the term to all the circus performers as well, using pehlivan in the very broad sense to refer to someone who possesses and displays some unusually difficult or arcane physical skill. Thus, for Evliya, the term pehlivan could include tumblers and rope-walkers, fire-eaters, jugglers, conjurers.

^^Baudier, p. 89. 176 strong men, and animal trainers. Unlike the dancers, buffoons and actors, most of the pehlivanlar had some special skills that could usually not even be imitated by the untrained spectator, and thus, unsophisticated audiences would respond with a sense of wonder. The special feats of the Ottoman pehlivanlar. however, like those of today's circus performers, often relied as much upon clever trickery and deception as upon genuine physical skill.

The performers who relied least upon deception were the tumblers and equilibrists; their craft was a combination of show­ manship and sheer athleticism. Various kinds cf tumblers, generally called takla-baz or perende-baz. abounded at the s ^ -i-hümâvun. One particular type of tumbler was the cember- baz. or hoop-player, whose trick was to leap through hoops in various difficult ways. Figure 27 shows one of these performers in action beneath the kiosk of the Sultan. Two janissaries and a tulumci are in the picture, and the cember-baz is shown to have five assistants, one of whom seems to be wearing a mask. As the masked helper holds up the hoop, or cember. the performer stands on his hands in a highly contorted position, ready to make his leap. The tumbler wears a small skull-cap, a speckled shirt, 177

Fig. 27. —Contortionist Cemberbaz. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 35. 178 and tight knee-breeches. Two of his assistants play tambourines while the other two hold properties for later tricks.

Even more spectacular than the tricks of the tumblers were those of the equilibrists--the acrobats and rope-walkers.

The most daring of these performers were referred to as the can-bazlar, or soul-stakers, because of the danger involved in their acts. According to Evliya, these acrobats were "capable of ascending to heaven on a rope-ladder, and to approach as they soar so high, Jesus and the Cherubim. The climbing of the two highest monuments of the hippodrome spina was considered to be a special feat of daring. A number of performers managed this feat at the sur-i-humslvun. and were rewarded by the Sultan, but at least one of the acrobats fell to his death during the festivities. 96

Less daring but no less skillful than the can-bazlar who mounted the hippodrome columns were the various kinds of rope-walkers and rope-dancers, called risman-bazlar, or

ip-bazlar. At the sur-i-hümavun of Murad HI, these performers

displayed their skills on rope-rigging which was set up in the

center of the square, attached to high wooden masts rather than

95Evliya, p. 228.

96Haunolth, p. 471. 179

to the spina monuments. On this rope-rigging, the Ottoman

performers are reported to have executed extremely complex

and difficult tricks, such as walking the ropes with blindfolds

on, with their hands bound, or with other performers perched on their backs or hanging from their legs.

The Surname paintings unfortunately do not depict any

of the more complicated of the rope-walkers' tricks, but the pair of miniatures reproduced as Figure 28 give an indication of the technical apparatus and general appearance of the rope- walkers' performances. The main ropes are supported by three masts, and the ropes are kept taut by several other lines which run down to the ground. The three performers are shown in various positions. One begins his ascent, balancing himself with a long staff, while the others stand or sit on the higher ropes. The costumes of these performers are quite similar to that worn by the cember-baz tumbler , but the long-tailed

jacket worn by the rope-walker to the right is very much like that worn by some of the buffoons. Of interest also is the set

of rope-walkers' tools—hooks, balances, weights and stilts—

which is hung between two of the masts in the left-hand painting.

97see Fugger, pp. 67-68. Fig. 28. —Rope Walkers. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames g 94, 363. 181

Though the native Ottoman performers were famous for their skill as tumblers and equilibrists, there were a number of foreign performers among the rope-walkers at the festival who were received with special praise. Some of these were

Arabs, but there was one Indian whose show of skill was considered to have been the best of all. A brief description of this man's act by von Haunolth is worth quoting here:

The Indian, as was mentioned above, walked without difficulty back and forth on a rope at the height of a rather large house. He performed many strange jumps on it, and even pretended as if he were falling from the rope, yet while falling he caught himself several times with his hands, knees and feet. He curled up on the rope like a snake and twirled around. He also walked on the rope on stilts that had several hooks on them and were quite high. This he did from day to day with greater skill, so that he was praised manifold with the fact that his likeness would not soon be seen again. 99

Regarding the performance of this Indian equilibrist, it is interesting to note that the showmanship of rope-walkers, in which they pretend to fall and then catch themselves, remains today very much as it was in sixteenth-century Istanbul. In general, it can be said that many of the minor circus entertain­ ments have really changed very little since ancient times.

Q^Haunolth, p. 471.

QQibid., p. 478. 182

Conjurers

A wide variety of Ottoman entertainers can be grouped in the general category of conjurers. What all their acts had in common was their reliance upon illusion and deception that was achieved through manual dexterity or through the use of special devices or properties. The performer who was perhaps the quintessential Ottoman conjurer was called a hokka-baz. or player with cups, who corresponded to the Roman Acetabularius or the French joueur de gobelets. ^00 Originally applied to a performer who played the universally familiar "cup and balls" trick, the term hokka-baz came to be used as a more general name for a conjurer or sleight-of-hand artist.

Evliya's listing, however, includes hokka-baz as but one of over twenty kinds of performers who can be classified as con­ jurers. To many of these, the term "juggler" might also

apply, for Evliya's list includes such performers as the fire- eaters and sword-swallowers, whose acts did not use so much of the Ulusionistic legerdemain usually accociated with conjuring

lOOgee And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 22.

^Evliya, pp. 228-229. 183

shows. Several of the performers mentioned by Evliya are listed according to the principal objects with which they practiced their sleight-of-hand tricks—thus the players with cups, with bottles, with eggs, etc.

The tricks performed by the Ottoman conjurers very often involved audience participation and a fairly close relationship between performer and spectators, and thus many of the shows were not too well suited to the festival situation. A trick with cups and balls is hard to make come across to a mass audience.

Although some performances by solo conjurers are recorded at the s^ " i-hümâyunj-Q^ many of these artists solved the problem of the festival conditions by performing in groups, several dif­ ferent acts all going at once. One of these large conjuring displays is seen in Figure 29, and a number of separate acts can be identified. Altogether, there are four conjuring acts in the painting. For each act, there is one conjurer and one assistant.

The assistants here all play musical instruments or noisemakers which were used to distract the spectators at strategic moments.

Three of the assistants play on tambourines, while the fourth

shakes a cymbal-stick which was called a zilli mas a. There are

also various pieces of conjurers' equipment laid out on the ground.

^*^%aunolth, p. 478. 184

Fig. 29—Conjurers and their Equipment. SÛrname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 316. 185 including the familiar stacked jugs and vases. The dog and the monkey are doubtless part of the conjurers' equipment, also.

Three of the four conjuring acts can readily be identified.

The two kneeling performers who face each other at the top of the grouping seem to be hokka-bazlar, playing the trick of the cups and balls. The conjurer on the right seems to be tossing a little ball into the air. The performer in the foreground is a bevza-baz. or player with eggs; here he balances two eggs on the end of a long staff. The act of the fourth performer, who kneels in the very center of the group, cannot be definitely iden­ tified from the black-and-white photograph of Osman's painting.

The man seems to be holding up an egg-like object, and perhaps he, too, is one of the beyza-bazlar.

Though most of the tricks pictured in Figure 29 would seem to have been fairly simple and obvious, the western witnesses to these Ottoman performances were generally rather amazed by the conjurers. Paler ne speaks of the "joueurs de passe en passe, " who performed incredible tricks of sleight-of-hand and other phys­ ical feats. ^03 One description which indicates some ülusionistic

103palerne, p. 472. 186

skill also indicates some of the uses to which the various bowls

and jugs were put.

One man, who had only a cloth around his stomach and was otherwise quite naked, hid many round tin bowls, one of which went into the other, on his body and produced them again and threw them away from himself. He also rolled around and turned on the ground and nevertheless he still kept hidden on him­ self a la r ^ pot of water, which he did not spill at

In general, it can be concluded that many of the Ottoman

conjurers possessed great skill and dexterity, but that their tricks and equipment were not very elaborate. It is of some

interest to note that many of the conjurers were Jewish, and are

said to have been the descendants of the Jews who had fled Spain

in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, from whence they might

have brought certain entertainment practices.

Zorbaz Exhibitions

Related to the conjurers' performances were those of the

zor-bazlar, or strong men, who gave exhibitions of force and

endurance. Sometimes these acts simply involved lifting and

throwing great weights, but more often the zor-bazlar displayed

lO^Haunolth, p. 484,

105see John MulhoLland, "Eastern Magic, " Theatre Arts Monthly. XIV, No. 3 (March, 1930), pp. 211-17. 187 a capacity for s'uffering and mutilation which recalls the gory displays of the deliler. Some of the acts, however, used some deception for their effects. Whereas some of the deliler actually died from their self-inflicted wounds,most of the zor-bazlar came away from their seemingly injurious punishments smiling and unscathed, thus creating an illusion of superhuman strength and endurance.

One good example of a zor-baz exhibition is shown in

Figure 30. A low wagon is being rolled out onto the square, and on the wagon are several iron-mongers who are working a piece of the metal on an anvil. One worker holds the metal with tongs while another fans the fire with a huge bellows, and seven other workers pound at the metal with large hammers. The zor-baz himself lies on his back, supporting the anvil on his bare stomach. This seemingly prodigious feat of endurance probably involved a certain amount of deception as well as actual strength. Most of the zor-baz exhibitions took place at some distance from the spectators, so a certain amount of trickery could be hidden from general view, especially with the help of the several assistants to the zor-baz. One of the western witnesses

^^%aunolth, p. 472. 188

Fig. 30. —Zorbaz Display with Anvil. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 340. . 189 has left a description of some zor-baz exhibitions which ace rather similac to that shown in Figure 30, and he mentions the possibility of some deception.

He being stripped and stretched naked on the ground, belly upwards, a great stone was brought by eight men with handspikes and placed on his belly, which he bore while three or four men went over it from one side to the other. It is judged that he had something between his legs which sup­ ported i t . . . but all the same it was placed and taken away so quickly that no one could affirm he saw anything. Then there was placed on his belly a great rock and broken all to pieces by two Turks with axes . . .

It seems evident from the many descriptions of these exhibi­ tions that some of the performers were not professionals, but like the deliler, itinerant volunteers. Some of them perhaps might have been performing dervisler. and a number of their feats— licking hot iron, walking over hot coals, etc., do recall the prac­ tices of some of the dervis orders. Also, it is interesting to note that Evliya does not specifically list zor-bazlar in his catalogue

of entertainers.

Animal Acts

Another point of resemblance between the Ottoman popular

entertainments and those of the modern circus and carnival lay

107 Le Vigne de Per a, p. 173. 190 in the area of animal acts. The snr-i-hümâvun of Murad m included numerous kinds of animal exhibitions and performances.

Some of these were primarily wild animal baitings or combats, but many of the shows involved trained animals who performed a wide variety of tricks that ranged from the commonplace to the extraordinary.

A few of the animal acts were devoted to the exhibition of rare or unusual creatures. There was one display at the festival which featured a giraffe and two elephants. The giraffe was simply led about the square and exhibited as an exotic curiosity, but the elephants were trained to a certain extent. They went through an act in which they danced about and then kneeled beneath the imperial kiosk in obeisance to the Sultan. It is not certain whether these rare animals had been brought to Istanbul expressly for the festival, or were part of the regular court menagerie.

In any case, the displays of rare creatures were rather exceptional,

and most of the animal acts were presented by native Ottoman performers whose trained animals were mostly common creatures.

lOSpaierne, pp. 479-82.

109g'he court menagerie in 1574 evidently included a rhinoceros. See E. H. Freshfield, "Some Sketches Made in Istanbul in 1574, " Byzantinische Zeitschrift. XXX (1929), pp. 519-22. 191

Evliya'8 listing of professional entertainers includes five kinds of animal trainers or players-with-animals: the players with serpents, or yilan-baz: the players mth monkeys, or mavmun- baz; the players with dogs, or kopek-baz; the players with asses, or himar-baz; and the players with bears, or ayub- baz. Most of the textual sources attest to the participation of these performers in the sur-i-humayun, and there are also passages which indicate performances with trained horses, goats and cats. 111

In addition to the many brief textual references, the Surname paintings offer vivid and abundant evidence of the various animal acts. The relatively large number of Surname illustrations which deal with animal acts can perhaps be explained by the fact that

Murad himself was particularly fond of this kind of entertainment. ^12

A number of these miniatures are reproduced here, and these selected examples should serve to indicate the nature of the animal

acts which flourished at the festival.

ll^Evllya, p. 229.

ll^See Fugger, p. 65.

^^^Lebelski. 192

Figure 31 depicts a performance by one of the snake- charmers or player8-with-serpents, called yalin-baz. It is evident that this man's act goes beyond the mere charming of snakes in the familiar Hindu manner. Here, the performer is shown draped with snakes. Around him are several baskets and jugs to hold the snakes, and some spare costume items—a turban placed on a folded coat. In the lower part of the picture, two of the snake-charmer's assistants roll about a large barrel which was used in the act of the yalin-baz. One of the reknowned tricks of these performers was to climb into a barrel filled with supposedly poisonous snakes, to roll about and then to emerge unscathed. 11 s It seems likely that the serpents were not really poisonous.

Figure 32 shows a group of several performing animals with their trainers. The animals are all rather ordinary and their tricks seem most unspectacular. Two of the animal- trainers are directing their animals with little sticks, while two assistants play tambourines. There is a monkey who is riding

a goat. Three other monkeys seem to be dancing or merely walk­

ing on their hind legs, and there are two dogs who do not seem

^^%)alerne, p. 472. 193

Fig. 31. —A Snakecharmer and his Equipment. Surname of Murad m," OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 49. 194

Fig. 32.—PeF e of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625/ 195 to be performing at all. It seems evident that this depicts only a parade of animal-trainers and animals who are preparing to perform but not yet performing.

]h Figure 33 are shown several kopek-bazlar, or players with dogs, in action. Each of the four dog-trainers holds a small hoop, while one of them is leaning over the dog with a stick in an effort ot get the dog to begin the trick, which seem­ ingly involves not just the four hoops but the sphere-of-hoops which stands on a tripod in the background. The dog might be trained to balance himself upon the sphere. In the foreground of the painting a bit of buffoonery is taking place which involves two buffoons and a man in ordinary dress. The man seems to be imploring the dancing buffoon, while the other buffoon holds a large purse or shoulder-bag. The artistic connection between this comic action and that of the dog-trainers seems apparent— contrasting man's ability to control a dog but not another man— but one cannot be sure whether or not the buffoonery is supposed to be part of the animal act. It is known, however, that the Ottoman conjurers and animal-players frequently had comic assistants, or 114 vardaklar. who were dressed as buffoons. A contrasting

114 And, History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 22. 196

Fig. 33. —Animal Trainers and Buffoon. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 183. 197 master-dog, master-servant comic sketch such as is implied in this painting would seem to make for a lively and amusing act.

Among the most elaborate of the animal acts were those which

featured performing cats. Some of these were rather extraordinary

and amazed a number of the western visitors. Haunolth describes

the apparatus for one of the cat performances:

There was erected and put up a wooden structure with many rings or circles, rungs, and little ladders and pillars, which was all coloured and painted. Upon this there was a common housecat who walked, crept, climbed and jumped while it was being ordered around by a Turk and was directed by him with a little white stick . . . 115

Though this description hardly records anything particularly

extraordinary in the cat's performance, there was another show

involving cats which can be considered exceptional. This act

is shown in Figure 34. Two cats are walking a tightrope in

seeming imitation of the human risman-bazlar. The cats seem to

use balancing-poles, and their tightrope apparatus seems to be an

exact copy in miniature of that used by the human rope-walkers,

even down to the set of little hooks, weights and stilts which hangs

between two of the vertical poles. One of the cat trainers, or

kedi-bazlar. stands to the left of the scaffolding with a small stick,

and a scarf slung about his shoulder.

l^^Haunolth, p. 481. 198

Fig. 34. --Performin^afs^n a Tightrope. S^name of Mur ad OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 116. . 199

One of the favorite Ottoman animal-acts is shown in

Figure 35. This is the performance of the famous "dancing bears" which are still on occasion to be seen in and around

Istanbul. The handlers of the bears, called ayub-bazlar, were often from the Gypsy population, and they taught their bears to dance and wrestle, among other things. ^^6 in the right-hand painting of Figure 35, two bears are being led past the three­ tiered stand by two handlers, one of whom wears a turban and the other a furred Georgian cap. In the left-hand painting, two bears are dancing with each other, while two attendants play tambourines and another directs the dancing of the large beasts.

The mood of iniiocent merriment created by the dancing bears and some of the other animal acts contrasted sharply with the cruelty and brutality of most of the hunts, animal baitings and combats which took place at the festival. A number of hunts were held in the M Mevdan. on the same grounds which had been used for the elaborate hunts or venationes of the eastern Roman empire one thousand years earlier. The Ottoman hunts, though, were not so elaborately staged nor were the animals hunted as

^^^Haunolth, p. 506. Fig. 35. —Dancing Bears. Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Filmno. 1625, frames CO 176, 392. o o 201 fierce and dangerous as those of the Roman spectacles. Whereas the Romans and Byzantines had hunted lions, bison and great stags, the hunts at the sur-i-humtyun of Murad m were directed against such animals as hares, foxes and Hungarian boars.

Some of the animal combats at the festival involved fairly common creatures and were not particularly bloody. One of these combats is shown in Figure 36. Two large rams, one white and one dark, have been set upon each other, and are in the process of mutual butting. Their handlers stand behind them, and in the hand of the handler to the right is seen a looped cord which presumably had been attached to the rear leg of the dark ram. Of interest here also is the buffoon in the foreground.

Again engaged in comic parody, the buffoon makes to butt some of the spectators, who raise their arms defensively. The spec­ tators receiving the butting do not look amused, but the janissary seated on the base of the obelisk views the buffoonery with what seems to be a wry smile.

Other of the animal combats and baitings were conducted in rather brutal fashion. The victims of the baitings were almost always boars or pigs. Any kind of pig was considered an unclean animal to the Muslim Ottomans, and also symbolized the infidel

ll'^Fugger, p. 66. 202

Fig. 36. —Fighting Rams. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 326. 203

Christians, who ate pork and were thus unclean also. The

Ottomans felt themselves to be represented, in the animal king­

dom, by wolves and lions, In Figure 37, a combat between a

lion and a boar is shown. The lion is restrained by three handlers who hold a heavy chain attached to the lion's collar. The boar

is not treated with so much respect. A buffoon and a janissary hold cords attached to the boar's rear legs, while a tulumci

clownishly holds the boar's tail. There were a number of lion versus boar combats and baitings at the festival, some of which had several animals on a side. The boars were usually torn to pieces, but on one occasion one of the more aggressive boars managed to chase off not only three lions, but also a leopard, a wolf and three dogs, all in succession. In view of the Christian versus Muslim symbolism of the combats, the humiliating rout

of the attacking beasts was considered a very bad omen. Finally, the boar had to be beaten to death with wooden clubs by the palace

pages.

Aside from this particular shabby performance in the eyes

of the Ottomans, the various animal baitings went quite well,

and it is interesting to note that the most ferocious of the boar-

külers were two trained English dogs, which had been brought

^^®Haunolth, pp. 479-480. Fig. 37. —Combat between a Lion and a Boar. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frames, 51, 266. I 205 to Istanbul by two German noblemen. iq all, though the

Ottoman animal baitings seem cruel and brutal to the modern

reader, the evidence suggests that they were somewhat less

cruel than the contemporary English bull and bear baitings, and

certainly less barbarous and sadistic than some of the Roman

combats and slaughters in the arena.

Although most of the popular entertainments at the sim-i-

hümâvun of Murad ICE were by no means as crude as the animal

baitings and combats, it is evident that there was very little

subtlety or sophistication to any of them. Except for the music

and some of the dramatic activity, the appeal of the entertain­

ments was entirely visual; there was a good deal of optical

excitement to the various shows, but a total lack of intellectual

content or stimulation. Although the audiences contained

aristocrats as well as common people, most of the entertainments

reflected only the tastes of the mass of the populace, which was

illiterate and insensitive, to anything of elegance in the realm of

the performing arts.

119particular Beschrevbung. p. 12. CHAPTER VI

THE SUR-i-HÜMAYUN OF MURAD HI;

SPECTACULAR ENTERTAINMENTS

Introduction

The entertainments which will be discussed in this chapter can all be considered extraordinary in the sense that they depended on the special circumstances of a vast festival for their effective presentation. Such entertainments as puppet shows and conjuring could be seen in streets and bazaars almost any day of the year, but such a show as a mock battle could only be seen at an imperial festival. Taking into consideration the size of the festival-ground and the audience, and also the desire of the court for sumptuous display, the highly spectacular character of most of these festival- entertainments was to be expected. Like the great sur-i-hum&vun itself, the spectacular entertainments were designed to impress the native Ottomans and the foreign visitors alike with rich splendor.

Of particular interest from the standpoint of theatrical history is the extent to which many of the spectacular entertainments reflected a definite dramatic tendency in that they involved the

206 207 imitation or representation of action by means of enactment and the use of visual symbols. ]h view of the strong visual emphasis of these quasi-dramatic spectacles, it is unfortunate that many of them are absent from the Surname paintings, which depict only those having to do with combats of fireworks. This absence is both regrettable and somewhat difficult to explain, but fortunately the textual descriptions are detailed enough to provide a fairly vivid picture of this activity in spite of the lack of pictorial evidence.

Spectacular Devices

Though many of the quasi-dramatic spectacles made use of scenic units and devices, there were a few devices which were shown at the festival simply for their own inherent entertainment value.

Jh some respects, many of these devices can be considered oversize examples of puppet devices and figures. One display featured a wagon which moved without horses or any other visible means of locomotion. ^ This device was received with some amazement among the spectators, and it seems probable that the device used either a cleverly concealed operator, or perhaps some kmd of clock­ work. There was also another wagon, this one drawn by a horse and a donkey, which is said to have gone up in the air on a tightrope. ^

haunolth, p. 502,

^Fugger, p. 65. 208

This effect is difficult to explain without any more descriptive details, but it seems possible that the whole device, animals and all, was a light-weight artificial construct which could be pulled up a tightrope by means of a disguised pulley system. There is a painting in a later Ottoman festival-book which seems to depict just such an arrangement for creating the miraculous effect of a flying horse 3 and carriage.

Some of the other devices at the festival were less magical.

There were a number of large figures made of linen and hoop frames which represented various animals, real and mythological, and

some of these were made with lighting devices set inside them so that they could be exhibited at night.One of the most elaborate

of these large puppet-like devices is described in some detail by von Haunolth.

Then was seen a monster with four heads, open jaws or mouths, of which there were always three open. It had long teeth and in the fourth mouth there was a little Turkish man between the teeth. The monster had four arms and hands, and in one it had a young maiden, which it brought up to its mouth, as if wanting to devour it. In another hand the monster held a large spear and the other two hands were placed on its hips.

^See And, Kirk Giin Kirk Gece. pp. 24-25.

^Haunolth, p. 484. 209 Everything, however, was made of hoops, and linen covered it, and it was all so very ill- proportioned that one had to laugh at it. Even though it was tall and large, still only one man carried it, who turned around once in a while. He was led by a man dressed as a satyr or wild man, and by another on a mule. °

Such spectacular devices as this monster were quite often seen in pageants and festivities throughout Christian Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the later Ottoman festivities also made use of these devices. In both the western and the Ottoman festivals the favorite subjects for the devices were mythological creatures—giants, dragons and sea-monsters. The particular monster described above, if one can trust von Haunolth's critical appraisal, was not very well executed, but some of the later Ottoman festival devices were evidently quite complicated and skillfully constructed. ®

Pantomimic Spectacles

There were two performances at the sûr-i-hüniavun which seem to have involved some measure of dramatic representation.

^Ibid. . p. 478.

%ee And, A Historv of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 19. The author describes a submarine device built for a festival in 1720, which was shaped like a crocodile; the device "could be operated either on the surface or under water. When it opened its mouth, five dancers stepped out and danced. " 210 but which were quite unlike any of the simple Ottoman farces or buffoon-plays, both in subject matter and in their manner of presentation. The subject matter and the tone of the two spec­ tacles were relatively serious, and then* presentation involved the use of dance and pantomime.

Both of these pantomimic spectacles were given during the early evening of June fourteenth, and were presented by a company of Christian slaves or prisoners. The first performance was a representation of the battle between St. George and the dragon.

Haunolth's brief account of this performance follows:

. . . they also presented the knight St. George, whom they also consider a saint. First of all, to a rather large band of lutes and one cornet, they danced several beautiful (five or six different types of) Mattazina and Moorish dances, with rapiers, daggers, halberds, and bows and arrows. Then came the dragon, which spit fire, carried by one man, of whom one could see only the legs. Against him fought a man on a mule like a knight and he finally killed the dragon. Then a troupe of nymphs danced about. . . 8

The Surname text contains a lengthy but very repetitious

description of the fire-breathing dragon, ® and another account

adds that when the dragon had been killed, "a virgin came out

"^Haunolth, p. 485.

Sibid.

^Lokman, HI Murat Surnamesi, p. 177a-b. 211 of the body. Thus it would seem that in this particular version of the familiar knight- s aves -m aiden-fr om - dr agon story, the maiden had already been eaten by the monster before the battle began. It can be conjectured that the performer who carried and operated the dragon was the same person who then emerged in the costume of

a virgin.

The second quasi-dramatic performance by the same troupe

seems to have had a somewhat more involved plot, but the accounts

are somewhat vague and a satisfactory explanation of the whole per­ formance is difficult to arrive at. Haunolth's description of the

spectacle is as follows:

... there was a band of three lutes, a cornet and a vio],in played by Italian slaves. There was also a man dressed in black, who carried a sphere or ball in his hands. Next to him there was a little boy, dressed as Cupid, and an Italian Bravo who was not masked. This one, after walking back and forth for awhile finally drew his rapier and started to press the little boy. Thereupon a maiden came with a little spear and wounded the Bravo. Afterwards, the man with the boy and the maiden withdrew . . . ^

The description of the same scene in the anonymous Particular

Beschrevbunq is almost the same as the von Haunolth version,

except that the man in black is described as "the Astrologo, "

lOparticular Beschrevbunq, p, 17.

^%aunolth, p. 485. 212

and the maiden who intervenes in the fight between the Italian Bravo

and the Cupid is called "a goddess" and "a nymph" who kills the

Italian with her dart rather than simply wounding him. This account

adds also that when the action was completed, the players "all went together into the tent out of which they had come. "1%

Due to the lack of any further details about this performance,

it is difficult to put forth any definite conclusions. The spectacle

seems to have been of western European rather than purely Ottoman

origin. It contains mythological characters of the western tradition,

as well as the Italian "Bravo" who from his name and bullying actions

could well be related to the Italian stock character of the braggart

soldier. As for the action, it might have represented some variation

on the legend of Cupid and Psyche, or perhaps some allegory on

the theme of love, or power. A key to the meaning of the action

might lie in the character of the man in black, the "Astrologo, " but

his identity and his role in the action is not clear.

In all, while a complete explanation of the mythological panto­

mime is perhaps impossible to reach, one can be fairly sure that

both it and the St. George dance-spectacle reflected the influence of

western theatrical tradition. The performers were Christian slaves.

l ^atticular Beschrevbunq", p. 19. 213

some of them Italians, and it is known that as early as 1524, Italian

and Ottoman performers had combined to produce an adaptation of

a European court-ballet or pastoral which employed both dance and pantomimic acting. Also, in view of the relatively serious or heroic tone of the two pantomimic spectacles at the siïr-i-hümayun, it can be suggested that the French traveller Palerne had these performances in mind when he spoke of the "tragedies meflees de danses" which he had seen at the festival.

Displays of the MiLletler

Various groups representing the several ethnic and religious minorities of the Ottoman empire made contributions to the festivi­ ties in the form of ceremonial displays; the initial entries of the

Greek and Armenian patriarchs have already been referred to in an

earlier chapter. There were, however, a few of the displays of

the milletler which can be considered spectacular entertainments as well as ceremonial observances. One of these was presented by the

Jews, and took the form of a grand processional masquerade which

ISSee And, A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey, p. 115.

l^Palerne, p. 486.

IGgee supra. , pp. 95-96. 214 was intermixed with dances, mock combats, and pageant devices.

Palerne describes part of this display in the following passage:

. . .the Jews made a particularly agreeable show, in the number of three hundred young men divided into three bands, and representing the three follow­ ing nations, the French, the Spanish and the Swiss: clothed and armed in the same manner, followed by an infinity of dragons, centaurs, sirens and tortoises of the sea . . .

Haunolth adds the information that the pretended European foot soldiers and mounted knights tilted and skirmished with each other as the parade moved across the square. The entire group also

"jumped and played and danced in the Moorish manner. "1?

This processional masquerade of men and monsters was followed by other displays by the same company of Jews. These formed the tail end of the whole spectacle, and are described by 1A Palerne as "bizarre and fantastic"; one of these bizarre displays involved a group of wives who were carried on their husbands' shoulders. The encumbered husbands not only carried their wives, but spun flax as they marched, thus doing the women's work.

16paierne, p. 463.

I'^Haunolth, p. 482.

ISpaierne, p. 464.

19lbid. 215

The significance of this last display is by no means readily apparent, but its possible meaning can be inferred by seeing it in relation to the main part of the procession--the mascarade of the

European nations. Many of the Jews who formed the Jewish millet in the Ottoman capital were refugees from the persecution of western

European countries; a particularly large number of Ottoman Jews had fled from Spain after 1492. The Jews enjoyed relative freedom and security in Istanbul during the sixteenth century, and it would seem that in their processional mascarade, the Jews were cele­ brating their Ottoman residence by parading in the costumes of the countries from whence they had fled. Parading in the military dress of their former homelands was a somewhat derisive gesture for the marchers, inasmuch as they never would have been permitted such a display in Europe. If this interpretation of the Jewish masquerade is correct, then it can be suggested that the comic husbands-wives display which followed the main procession was another slap at the western Europeans, in which the western tendency for women to dominate their menfolk was ludicrously symbolized. 20

20The position of women in sixteenth century Europe would hardly seem dominant by modern standards, but to the sixteenth century Ottomans a different view prevailed. 216

This Jewish procession, according to Palerne, made its way across the square to the imperial kiosk, where several verses of praise were recited and rich gifts were presented to the Sultan and his son. Although Palerne found the Jewish mascarade a very agreeable show, von Haunolth found it unorganized and disappoint­ ing. He reports that the show was received with laughter and hisses, and that the company had to depart in disgrace.

If the Jewish display failed to impress some of the observers, the spectacle presented by the members of the Greek millet was quite well executed and was evidently very well received by the audience. The performers were Greeks from the town of Per a, and the display consisted of an elaborate representation of a Greek wedding procession, followed by an extensive performance of folk dancing. Haunolth's detailed description of this spectacle attests to the beauty and splendor of the Greek display.

. . . there was something like a wedding procession, consisting first of some twenty or thirty boys all dressed in gold cloth. After them came a musical group, several old men with staffs, who were super­ visors of the court. Then came six stewards dressed in gold cloth and wearing Italian black velvet berets ornamented with pearls and jewels. There followed several youths, as well as other beautiful boys in

^^Palerne, p. 464.

22Haunolth, p. 482. 217

women's clothes, who appeared so dainty with a hand­ kerchief in the hand, that many were in doubt whether they were men or women. In their midst there were those who were supposed to depict bride and bride­ groom, walking under a canopy sky, which was carried by eight well clad youths. Again a few youths and several individuals dressed in women's clothes followed them. Finally the rear was brought up by several happy young boys, also masqueraded in women's clothes. After they had all shown themselves to the Sultan, the above mentioned hundred performed first of all ct circledance, one next to the other. This dance is called the great Alexandrine and is danced by changing the feet according to the beat. Since this dance was quite lengthy, they did not complete it this day but the next, when they came again, all the more because there were other groups waiting to come on the square. The others, however, that were with the bride, and those that led the women with the handker­ chiefs, performed a very old and venerable Greek dance over the whole square. It consisted of strange windings, twists and other things which, however, were all decent gestures, so that it was all very fine and entertaining to look at.

Another source adds that the great Alexandrian dance was performed by one hundred men dressed as Macedonian soldiers.

The several folk dances performed by the members of the

Greek millet after the wedding procession display were evidently those which would generally be performed at a real Greek wedding.

The real wedding celebrations of the Greeks included women as well as men in the dances, but it is evident that for the sûr-i-hümayun

23lbid., pp. 489-90.

articular Beschrevbunq. p. 23. 218 the Greeks used boys disguised as women in deference to prevalent

Ottoman custom regarding the participation of women at public performances. There were a number of other exhibitions of folk dancing by members of various ethnic groups at the festival, per­ formed by dancers from Anatolia, the Balkans, Arabia, and North

Africa, and perhaps , but most of these exhibitions were of very small scale compared to that of the Greeks at the wedding procession display. The display itself was probably chosen for its appropriateness to the occasion--the ceremony of circumcision being considered a kind of wedding by the Ottomans. In this regard it is interesting to note that the subject of one of the puppetry performances was also a wedding ceremony. Thus it is apparent that there was some measure of thematic continuity provided not only by the solemn ceremonies but by the popular and spectacular entertainments as well.

Combats and Mock Battles

The combatant and martial spirit of the Ottomans was vividly manifested at the sur-i-hümÈvun of Murad IH, in the form of various combats and displays of athletic and military skill.

Some of these were in the realm of games or sports; there were

BGgee Haunolth, pp. 492, 501 et passim. 219 wrestling matches, archery contests, and exhibitions of skilled horsemanship, performed by professional athletes and by members of the Ottoman armed forces. Most of the displays, however, were carried out in the spirit of military combat and reflected the desire of Sultan Murad to demonstrate the might of his empire.

]h this respect, the Ottoman festivities resembled the splendid tournaments of medieval and renaissance Europe, with their mounted jousts and infantry melees. As in the tournaments of

Christendom, the Ottoman combats included not only displays of real military skill in which the combatants fought more or less in earnest, but also exhibitions which were elaborately staged and costumed theatrical representations of military combat.

Even in the "real" combats, the participants stopped short of actual killing or even bloodshed; only in the Roman arenas did this sort of spectacle ever prevail as a regular practice. Many of the

Ottoman combatants, however, like the delüer, were eager to prove their toughness and courage before the Sultan, and thus some of the military exhibitions at the festival involved a certain amount of danger. The participants in the combats generally came from the ranks of the Ottoman feudal cavalry. These knights, or

sipahiler. fought with each other on horseback with javelins, in the Ottoman equivalent of the western mounted joust, and also 220 engaged in various combats on foot, fighting with cudgels and blunt swords. There were a few individual jousts with paired champions tilting at one another in the western fashion, but most of the Otto­ man combats were mass skirmishes or melees with several combatants. on a side. The western tradition of the cumbersome, heavily armored charge with the lance was alien to the Ottomans, and most of the combats at the sur-i-hiimayun demonstrated speed and agility rather than brute force.

As was also the case at the western tourneys, an element of pageantry and theatricalism entered into the Ottoman combats.

Not only were some of the mounted jousts conducted by sipahiler dressed in Spanish and Persian costumes, but also some combats were fought between warriors dressed as Turks and others dressed as Christians or Persians. In these jousts, it would, of course, not do for the Turks to be defeated, so the outcome of the jousts had to be predetermined. Thus, these were not real combats so much as mock combats deliberately staged to show the superiority of the

Ottoman forces over their traditional enemies.

The theatrical tendency which showed itself in some of the jousts and minor skirmishes took over completely in the major combats, which were nothing less than totally staged theatrical representations of entire battles between the Turks and their 221

Christian or Persian foes. These great mock battles were elaborate pageants staged for the purposes of national propaganda.

They employed settings, costumes, properties, and spectacular special effects, and featured pantomimic acting by scores of per­ formers. Every effort was made to present vivid and thrilling demonstrations of Ottoman military might in the mock battles, and the effect was one of utter realism. Whereas the elaborate mock battles of the Christian tournaments usually were full of allegorical or mythological symbolism, the Ottoman spectacles represented battles with specific, real enemies. There were mock battles with the Persians, with the , with the

Germans, the French, the Burgundians and other of the Christian infidels. Naturally, the Turkish forces always won.

There were at least six major mock battles which were presented at the sur-i-hümâvun. and several others of smaller scope. The major battles were sponsored and prepared by various high officials who wished to please the Sultan with the great spec­ tacles. Thus one battle was sponsored by the grand vizir, another by the Kaptan-pasa. and so on. Presumably, these high officials

26gee Emü Magne, Les Fetes en Europe au XVn Siecle (Paris: Rombali Editeur, n. d. ), pp. 110-17, et passim. 222 also paid the costs of the spectacles, which must have been considerable because of the numbers of men and special devices involved.

Most of the textual sources contain descriptions of the major mock battles, and there are particularly lengthy and detailed accounts in von Haunolth, Lebelski, and Palerne. These texts indicate some variations among the various battles, but the basic pattern of the spectacles is clearly shown in a series of miniatures from the Surname. This series is reproduced here in Figures 38 through 41, In Figures 38 and 39, attendants are shown preparing for the battle by setting up the basic scenic unit, the mock castle. In these miniatures, the castle is being assembled on the square before the eyes of the audience, but in other mock battles, the castles were rolled in on wheels, already set up and furnished with men and arms. The castles were constructed of pasteboard and light timber, and the pieces carried by the attendants in Figure 38 resemble the "flats" of the modern stage. In Lebelski’s account, the mock castles are described as

"blockhouses covered all over with thicke paper, and strengthened about with towers, " and "Fortresses made of boar des, gylded and

27 Lebelski. 223

Fig. 38. --Atte k Battle Surname of Murad ICE. 20, frame 357. 224

Fig. 39. —Attendants assembling a Mock Castle. Surname of Murad Ht OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 142. 225 painted with divers colours, well garnished with Walles, and little

Towers, Rampires, and BuLwarkes. "28

Figure 40 depicts a mock battle in progress beneath the kiosk of the Sultan. There are two mock castles, one Ottoman and the other Christian. The Ottoman forces, with their white turbans, are to the left. In front of the castles, the Ottoman and Christian cavalrymen attack one another with lances and bows, while the defenders in the two castles fire at each other with bows, cross­ bows, muskets and small cannons. The use of artillery fire in the mock battles made for spectacular effects. The usual pro­ cedure in the mock battles was for the Ottoman forces to drive the

Christians all into their own castle, which the Ottomans would then storm with artillery and battering rams. Having breached the enemy walls, the Ottoman attackers then would swarm into the

Christian castle and secure their victory.

The conclusion of a mock battle is shown in Figure 41. Two armored Ottoman knights are supervising the evacuation of the enemy troops, who stand with arms folded and their swords in their teeth. On the towers of the defeated castle, Ottoman soldiers are shown replacing the enemy banners vrith Ottoman flags and battle standards. In some of the battles, the castles were torn to

28lbid. 226

k " m m

,fl !S ' rdi n R B B B ‘1^- .-'Z; ,& U ..^ aPuM- -i twn ®l -If, ^ 181 '# '-:s ':ÜL: <2 iâ .^■"^eaw^ur Æ . , , .r E ■ V 5ü,Sti:3ŒîEîaBi5ïi:> JSS'' .-,« ^^a^'-^mSSSE

Fig. 40. —A Mock Battle. Surname of Murad HE. OSBTC Film no. 1625, frame 143. 227

Fig. 41.-- Jattle. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC 5, frame 111. 228

pieces by the attackers or blown up with explosive charges. In

some of the Christian castles, dummy soldiers were placed so

that they could be dismembered or blown to bits at the conclusion

of the battle. In one of the battles, the Ottoman victors displayed

the severed heads of their enemies on the battlements of the

vanquished castle. 29

Though the basic pattern of most of the mock battles was the

same--the storming and capture of an enemy castle--there were a

number of variations and additions to this basic theme which made

the mock battles more interesting and effective as theatrical repre­

sentations. Some episodes were added to the action to provide plot

complications and to create suspense. In one of the battles, during

a lull in the fighting, the Christian defenders sent out a procession

from their besieged castle. The procession was led by a patriarch,

and he discussed terms of surrender. When terms could not be

agreed upon, the Christians returned to their castle and the battle

was resumed. 20 Another battle featured a more lengthy and com-

,plicated episode in which spies were shown sneaking back and forth

between the two opposing camps. 21

29paierne, p. 465.

SOsaunolth, p. 500.

SlLebelski. 229

Some of the mock battles were not without a certain amount of comic relief or contrast. At the conclusion of one particularly fierce struggle between the Ottomans and the Christians,

. . .then the Turkish footsoldiers were able to draw closer to the battlements of the small Christian fort. They brought up closer and closer their field cannons and thus they stormed and took the small fort. As they were now tearing down the walls, four pigs came running out, that had been kept captive inside, so that it should be made clear without a doubt that one was mocking the Christians (because a pig is among them a very unusual and abhorrent creature, and it is also the mark of a Christian, as for them it is expressly forbidden to eat the meat). These pigs now produced a great laughter and screaming among them.

It is apparent from the accounts of the other western witnesses that the Christian visitors did not find this spectacle funny in the least.

The most elaborate and lengthy of the mock battles at the sur-i-humayun was one which departed in two major respects from the basic pattern of the other combats. In the first place, it elaborated considerably upon the storming of the castle theme to represent a whole series of related battles pertaining to an entire campaign; and in the second place, it did not simply represent an imaginary battle, but re-created an actual Ottoman victory which had taken place some eleven years earlier—the taking of the island

3%aunolth, p. 479.

88gee Palerne, p. 465. 230

of Cyprus. The mock battle was sponsored and planned by the same

Ottoman leader who had actually overseen the capture of Cyprus in

1571, the Kaotan-pasa, For this spectacle, an enormous repre­

sentation of the island was rolled into the hippodrome. On one end of the island was the Christian stronghold of Famagusta, which had been the last city to fall to the Ottomans after they had occupied the rest of the island. The great mock combat showed the galleys

of the Turkish fleet landing troops on the island, and the retreat of the Christian defenders into the fortified city of Famagusta. Then the siege of that city was depicted. It was assaulted by Ottoman troops from the landward side, and bombarded from the galleys at

sea. The early English translation of Palerne's account of this

show admirably captures the spirit of the presentation;

There was artificially seene the siege of Famagouste, the sallies, skirmishes, batteries, counter-batteries, mines, counter-mines, breaches, assaults upon assault, fireworkes, and whatsoever the furie of Warre could invent. Sometimes the Turkes were Masters of the Wals, and suddainly the generositie of the Cypriots repulsed them: but time, force, and the want of succours made them receive the composition which they offered them; yet the disloyaltle of the Turkes did not observe it, for some they made slaves, and the rest they put to the Sword: All this was seene in the Place: when as the sound of trumpets, the noise of drums, and the howling of the Turkes and the thundering of the canons seemed to be at the taking of another island at Cypres. The wonder of this artificiall representation cüd much please 231

the Sultan, rejoyced the people, and revived in the Christians minds the grief of their losse . . . 34

This representation of the capture of Cyprus was doubtless not only the greatest of the mock battles, but also the most splendid single entertainment of the whole festival. It was theatrically exciting and entertaining, and also provided a tremendous propa­ ganda effect. This celebration of one of the most glorious

Ottoman conquests certainly exemplified the spirit of ostentatious pride which lies at the heart of most pageantry even today.

Fireworks Displays

Illuminations and fireworks displays were traditional spec­ tacular entertainments at the Ottoman public festivities. 3h the hippodrome, the same extensive network of lamps which provided the light for the entertainments and sports of the evening also constituted in and of itself a joyous illumination, or donannma. of a highly festive and spectacular character. The festival ground at night was filled with an elaborate tracery of thousands of tiny points of fire, some kept constantly in motion on machines fashioned to resemble great mill wheels or cascades of water. 35

34Baudier, p. 46.

35Lebelski. 232

In addition, the nights of the sûr-i-hümavun were made bright with displays of fireworks, or figekler. The fireworks displays often lasted until dawn, and ranged in scope from the simple firing of explosive squibs and small skyrockets to the presentation of elaborate spectacles which employed enormous and complicated fireworks devices. The more ordinary fireworks were bmlt and presented by the guild of the fireworks makers, or fisekciyan. but most of the larger displays were under the supervision of the Kaptan-pa^a and his sailors. A few of the more elaborate spectacles even rivalled the great mock battles in scope. There was one display in which the fall of Constanti­ nople to the Ottomans was represented entirely by fireworks.

Models of the seven great towers at the western end of the city were set up on the square. These had been filled with fireworks, and were set off one after the other, "with such a quantity of fireworks that the air seemed to burn on all sides. "3?

Most of the other fireworks displays were not so vast as this spectacle, yet many of them managed to produce some very pleasing and wonderful effects. The following brief passage by

36see Evliya, pp. 181-82.

2'^Le Vigne de Per a, p. 172. 233 von Haunolth indicates the variety and representational character of some of the displays:

. . . beautiful fireworks were set on fire, which had been offered to the Sultan that same day. There was a large mill wheel that turned around, and something that looked like a whole forest with trees, and also a beautiful meadow with trees and bubbling fountains, which was supposed to have been an invention of an Arab. There was set on fire a tent, a running dragon on a rope, a garden full of trees, a lantern, a fort, and a Greek priest. All of this was quite pleasant to look at, and was all fashioned from fireworks . . . 38

The "running dragon on a rope" suggests a fireworks device that was well known in the West during the seventeenth century, and the following passage from the Le Vigne de Pera account also

describes a device which was often used for fireworks displays

in the fetes of renaissance Europe:

. . . the usual fireworks at night, among which was seen a very pretty effect of two galleys as long as a gondola which fought together with fireworks for more than an hour so artfully that it gave the people the greatest pleasure, because having gradually approached each other one was seen to overcome the other in such wise that it was all burnt, and the victor then made great rejoicing with fireworks. This took place under the Signior's balcony, who was present every night at these fireworks, not missing any . . . ^^

38Haunolth, p. 487.

39Le Vigne de Pera, p. 172. 234

Both the dragon on a rope and the two galleys effects are explained in detail in a number of western European fireworks manuals of the seventeenth century, and it is possible that the

Ottoman devices were influenced by western developments in the field of pyrotechnics. It is known that at a later Ottoman festival, the fireworks devices were designed by reneqadoes of Dutch and

Venetian origin.

It is unfortunate that many of the more elaborate and spectacular fireworks devices are absent from the Surname miniatures; Osman depicts several of the basic types of Ottoman fireworks devices, but most of these appear much smaller in the paintings than those described in the textual accounts. K could be that the texts tend to exaggerate, but all through the Surname

Osman shows his unwillingness or inability, to depict displays of the largest scope or complexity. Also, it is apparent that the techniques available to the painter made it rather difficult for him to produce anything resembling the effect of bright fireworks going off in the dark of night.

40see Bate, pp. 43-46, and also John Babington, Pvrotechnia. or. a Discourse gi Artificall Fireworks (London: Ralph Mab, 1635), pp. 63-65.

41See Bent, p. 222. 235

Figure 42 reproduces two miniatures which depict some of the more common illuminating and fireworks devices of the festivi­ ties. In the painting to the left, there are three little castles all covered with burning squibs; the castle of fireworks was probably the single most common fireworks device at the festival. In the foreground to the left is a buffoon wearing an interesting horse cos­ tume which is also covered with little squibs; the buffoon carries a cresset of fire on a high pole. Also in the left-hand painting are three men who are carrying bun.dles of small skyrockets. In the right-hand painting, there are five cressets of fire planted in the ground and a small castle which has evidently not yet been set afire. To the right and left of the castle, attendants are setting off little skyrockets, lighting them with hand torches. In the upper part of this painting, a man is lighting two small fire pots which are planted in the ground. In the foreground of the painting, a buffoon

and a young boy in a turban are wearing the horse costumes, which

here are shown with no burning squibs covering them. It is probable that the men setting of£ the various fireworks are the fisekcivan guild

members, while those wearing the horse costumes are their appren­

tices who are serving as the yardaklar or comic assistants.

In Figure 43, another group of fairly common fireworks

devices is shown. In the background, one^of the fisekcivan is Fig. 42. —Fireworks Displays. Surname of Murad m. OSXTTC Film no. 1625, frames 401, 228. 03CO CO 237

Fig. 43. —Fireworks Displays. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 185. 238 lighting a small skyrocket while another attends to one of three low fire pots which produce a shrub-like fire effect. In the center of the picture is a tent-like arrangement of tiny burning squibs. The man to the right of the serpent column displays a small Roman candle, and the two men to the left of the serpent column seem to be putting in place some kind of device in which four charges are joined by long crossed ropes or fuses.

Figure 44 depicts some more spectacular devices. In the center of the picture, a large figure of a devil is carried by four men. The figure is all in flames which obliterate its exact appear­ ance, but a careful examination will reveal a skull-like face and head with two large horns. The label at the waist of the figure appears to be the word verd. which means "rose, " but it is perhaps more likely that the word is a partially obliterated form of the term nur. which refers to "a glowing apparition. " The transported figure is accompanied by a cenji and by a lute player, and also by five men who carry skyrockets. One of the rockets is more elaborate than the others; it is in the form of a large rooster-like bird. Once launched, the rocket perhaps imitated the flight of a bird. Jh

Figure 45, a similar bird, with spread wings and a long streaming tail, is shown flying through the air to the apparent rapt amazement of the spectators below, who look up and point. 239

Fig. 44.: OSUTC Film no. 1625, 240

Fig. 45. —Fireworks Displays^'Smiame of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 353. 241

One of the most elaborate devices depicted in the Surname is shown in Figure 46. It is an artificial mountain probably filled with fireworks so that it could be set afire after it had been paraded through the square and presented to the Sultan. It is carried by several men using shoulder harnesses or yokes which are attached to the supporting beams at the base of the device. The mountain is covered with little trees, and on the slopes there are wild mountain goats, foxes, and antelope. At the foot of the slopes two shepherds tend to their flock, next to a small stream. Situated on the stream to the left is a miniature mill, and to the right where the stream splits, there is an odd ziggurat-like structure which looks similar to the early renaissance representations of the Tower of Babel in western painting. The structure could be intended to represent a fountain, but its position between two rivers is another point of similarity to the Tower of Babel, which was according to legend situated in Babylon between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The possibility of a Biblical theme for this device is suggested not only by the little tower, but by the fact that the men who are carrying the device are not Ottomans but western Europeans. If there is a

Christian pageant device here which deals with the old testament material, then the opposition of the mill and the flock of sheep certainly suggests the Cain and Abel story. Perhaps then the 242

6. —An Artificial Momfain of Fireworks. of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. frame 26. 243

"shepherd" on the left is not a shepherd, but Cain who is defending his farmland from Abel's flock. It is also significant that the possible Cain figure wears a beard, indicating that he is the older of the two. He seems to be threatening the Abel figure, who con­ tentedly plays a shepherd's flute. It is also interesting to note that most of the wild animals on the slope are in male-female pairs, suggesting the story of Noah's ark. If the interpretation of this pageant device as a Christian symbolic artifact is not in error, then here is definite evidence of the presence of an element from the traditional religious pageantry of the Christian West introduced into a festival of the Muslim East. This example of western par­ ticipation, together with the other possible western influences in the areas of folklore, mythology, and mechanical devices, would seem to call for further investigation of the relationship between the

Ottoman empire and the West in matters of pageantry and entertain­ ment.

There is no passage in any of the textual accounts which exactly describes the device shown in Figure 46, but von Haunolth describes a mountain of fireworks which is somewhat similar;

The commander-in-chief of the fleet had a large mountain of fireworks carried about, that had been standing next to a wall on the square for several days and which on account of this had become quite rotten and decayed. This seemed as if it were pulled by two dragons, and below in front of the opening of the 244

momtam there were two men with spears, who kept watch over the mountain. On the top of the mountain there were two balls, one of which later when it was set on fire, turned around and around and gave off very beautiful flames for a long time. Further up, there sat a little boy with a string instrument and at the summit underneath the above mentioned ball there sat a naked man with a bow. It was quite green all over with hedges and shrubs, in which one from time to time saw live lambs and other types of animals. There was also on it a rock and two towers or forts, in front of which there went several savages with cudgels. As soon as, however, this mountain had advanced somewhat onto the square and had come in front of the Sultan, it saluted with a shot. Upon this eight persons, four of whom were dressed in red and the four others in blue according to the French man­ ner, came jumping out of the mountain with spears and danced... 42

This device resembles in several respects the mountain shown in the Swname miniature, but the figures on the device described by von Haunolth are different. Inasmuch as von Haunolth makes refer­ ence to only one mountain device in his very lengthy and complete account, however, it is possible that the mountain he describes and the mountain in the Surname are one and the same. In the Surname miniature, the side of the mountain which would have been directly facing the western visitors' gallery is not shown, so perhaps von

Haunolth's description is of the hidden side. As for the figures on von Haunolth's mountain, they could be interpreted as either

Biblical or mythological; the boy with the string instrument, for

^%aunolth, p. 486. 245 example, could either represent Orpheus or the young David. As far as the mountain's having been built by the commander of the fleet is concerned, it is perhaps significant that the was a haven for western renegades, and that the commander of the fleet, the Kaptan-pasa Uluc-Ali, was himself of Italian origin.

The mountain of fireworks shown in Figure 46 is one of the very few devices of any great size or complexity depicted in the

Surname of Murad lEL Whether or not the mountain painted by

Osman and the mountain described by von Haunolth were the same, the painting at least confirms the testimony of the text as to the strong degree of elaborate pageantry and artistic representation involved m the fireworks displays of the sur-i-humavun. This single painting, together with the many textual references to the various large fireworks spectacles, serves also to indicate that in the area of pyrotechnical and other spectacular devices, the Otto­ man festivities and the great aristocrat and civic festivals of western Europe were very similar. Such features of Ottoman festivity as the displays of the deliler and the dervisler were extremely exotic and bizarre to the western eye, but the Ottomans

and the "Franks" shared a common tradition in the field of spectacular pageantry and pyrotechnics.

43Baudier, p. 78. CHAPTER Vn

THE S m -Î-HUMAYIM OF MURAD IH:

GUILD PAGEA]SITRY

Introduction

The great processions of the guilds of Istanbul at the Ottoman public festivities remain among the most undeservedly neglected phenomena in the history of pageantry. Even Kirk Gun Kirk Gece devotes only five pages of text to this distinctive Ottoman tradition which flourished for four centuries and even survived the fall of the

Ottoman empire itself. ^ In the West, the only guild pageantry which can be said to have resembled or really rivalled the Ottoman tradi­ tion in scope was that of the Lord Mayor's Show in London, the medieval cycles of mystery plays in other English cities, and some of the festivals in the Low Countries.

An essential difference between the western and the Ottoman guild pageantry had to do with the purposes of their respective

^And, Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. pp. 167-72. Evidently the last major procession of the guilds in Istanbul was held to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Turkish Republic, in 1933; but traces of this tradition survived at least through the 1940's. See Tomlin, p. 31.

246 247 festival displays. In the western guild pageantry, the display or device of a particular guild would usually be somehow appropriate to the craft of that guild, yet would deal with a subject not directly related to the guild itself. Thus, in the English cycles, the guild of the boat wrights usually sponsored and constructed the pageant for the play of Noah. While these various guilds often outdid themselves to show off their skill and affluence in these pageants, the primary, or at least ostensible, purpose of their displays was to contribute to some overall religious or allegorical theme. In the Ottoman guild pageantry, however, the entire purpose of the guild displays and pageant devices was simply to provide vivid demonstrations of the crafts and products of the various artisan and merchant guilds of the capital, and thus to please and honor the Sultan and his assembled guests.

The guild pageantry at the str -i-hümÈvun of Murad m was quite extensive, and the distribution of the displays made an effective contribution to the organization of the festival. On June eleventh, after ten days of introductory pomp and ceremony, the guild pageantry began and then continued as a daily feature of the festivities until July seventh, the day on which prince Mehmed was circumcized. The guild parades would usually begin in the morning of each day and continue until the early, afternoon. On the average, there would be 248 five or six guiLd displays per day, interspersed with various enter­ tainments and ceremonials.

In all, over 150 guilds, or esnaf, participated in the festivities; the precise number is difficult to determine. The 8wname-i-humayun lists 148 guilds, including the guilds of entertainers, while von

Haunolth lists some 179 guilds, not including the entertainers. The

Swname's listing omits some guilds mentioned by von Haunolth which were evidently not considered worthy to be included in the official court records, such as those of the beggars and the tavern keepers. Also, the categories set up in the listing of the Swname text are somewhat more broad than those of von Haunolth. The sfjrname. for example, lists only guild of tailors, whereas von

Haunolth mentions four separate guilds of tailors. A comparison of the two listings suggests that in the guild system of Istanbul, there could be several companies of artisans or merchants all belonging to one guild, in a corporate arrangement. Thus the numerical discrepancy between the two lists is probably due to a difference of interpretation and not of observed fact. ^ The fact that the Surname

%ammer. Vol. VU, pp. 402-405, reproduces and translates the listing of the guilds from the SÛrname-i-hümâvun. He omits any discussion of von Haunolth's list in detail, despite the fact that his account of the festival seems to be based almost entirely on von Haunolth. Haunolth's listing is not a separate extract, but is spread over pp. 481-509 of his day-to-day account of the festival. 249 miniat'ures include only about 110 of the guild displays is probably a matter of artistic selectivity rather than of precise enumeration.

As to the order in which the various guilds made their appear­ ances on the square, the Surname text and the von Haunolth account do not seem to differ very significantly. In Evliya's account of the guild pageantry during the reign of Sultan Murad IV, it is stated that guilds were arranged carefully according to "their necessity and essential use, " the more important preceding the less important.

Thus in Evliya's procession the companies of entertainers come near the end of the great procession, along with the brewers and tavern-keepers and other undesirables. ^ In the sur-i-hum^un of

Murad HI, however, it is apparent that this procedure did not strictly obtain. The von Haunolth account does state that the tavern-keepers came last, ^ but otherwise a glance at the Swname or von Haunolth lists reveals no order of precedence based on importance, but rather an order evidently designed to provide a sense of variety and contrast to the pageantry. Thus von Haunolth's list shows that the beggars and brewers actually preceded the building tradesmen and even some religious officials, and the

Surname list shows that the guild of the acrobats came between the

^Evliya, pp. 240-49.

^Haunolth, p. 509. 250 sock-makers and the cotton-weavers. ^ Thus it can be seen that the principle used to arrange the processions of the guilds was essentially the same as that used to organize the entire festival itself. There was constant shifting of mood and emphasis to sustain

audience interest.

The basic procedure followed by the guilds when they entered the hippodrome can be illustrated by a passage from von Haunolth:

From this day forward and also the following days there came in procession all the people of all the guilds of commerce and trade: Greeks, Turks, Jews, Gypsies, etc. Each party was more handsomely out­ fitted than the other, and they appeared drawn up in order with many young boys handsomely dressed and decorated, etc. . . . They showed themselves to the Sultan and wished him well with many sayings and prayers; and according to their wealth and trade they offered a smaller or larger gift, in return for which they received a present or gift of some 100 aspers from the Sultan . . . they stood there the whole length of the square in good order in front of the Sultan and wished him well with a Hoca or priest as spokesman. Upon each of his expressed wishes of well-being, all of the boys as a whole shouted with a large commotion Amin, Amin--that is. Amen. After this they proceeded to march away in good order and this procedure was later followed by all of the groups afterward. ®

This procedure was the same for almost all of the many guilds,

but the really distinctive feature of the guild proeessions made each

guild's display an unique and entertaining spectacle. As the various

5See Hammer, p. 402.

^Haunolth, p. 481. 251 guilds paraded along on their way to the imperial kiosk, making one or more turns about the whole square, they made elaborate display of their respective crafts or products; thus . . .

. . . the Tailors made garments in passing upon the place; Smiths did worke in iron. Potters made pots. Cutlers made knives, and Sadlers saddles. Masons did built, and glassemakers did blow their glasses, Bakers did bake; and that which was not pleasing, the sluttish Butchers did kUl and flay beasts, and gave the flesh to the people. The Gardiners were there laden with flowers, the Ploughemen with their ploughes tilled the sand, the shepheards . . J

The various ways in which the Ottoman artisans and merchants managed to make effective presentations of their particular crafts or products are certainly worth consideration from the standpoint of processional pageantry, and the following pages contain a detailed examination of several selected, representative examples of the various kinds of pageant cars and devices so vividly depicted in the

Swname paintings.

Pageant Cars and Devices

Some of the textual accounts, particularly that by von Haunolth, contain detailed descriptions of the various cars and devices employed in the guild processions, but the miniatures by Osman give a vivid and unambiguous view of this pageantry which no flood of words can

'^Baudier, p. 74, 252 match. The miniatures are particularly helpful for the study of the devices themselves because in showing his usual reluctance to depict great crowds of people, Osman eliminates most of the marching guild members and boy apprentices from his pictures, and thus focusses on the pageant cars or emblematic devices, with clarity and in detail. Out of the 100 or so guild displays depicted by Osman, nine have been selected to provide a representative sampling. The nine have not been selected because they represent the most elaborate or complicated devices at the festival, but because they illustrate the various modes of expression employed by the guilds to make their displays as appropriate as possible to the nature of the craft or product which they wished to demonstrate to the Sultan and to the festival audience.

]h Figure 47 the display of the flower-sellers, or ezhar f&ûssan, is depicted. The device here is one of utmost simplicity yet the effect is striking. As the symbol of their trade, the flower- sellers have selected the favorite flower of Ottoman Turkey, the tulip, lale. The single tulip stands about twenty feet high, and is being placed and steadied on a stand by two of the guild members.

Other guild members watch the device in the background, as does the Sultan from his kiosk. To the right of the masonry column stands a group of apprentices and a religious official of the guild. 253

Fig. 4 7 .—Guild Pageantry. Tulip Display. Surname of Murad EEI. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 98. 254

In the center of the picture, another religious official in his high conical hat is reading the statement of well-wishes to the Sultan.

Other companies of flower merchants and gardeners presented elaborate gardens and figures of pagan gods all made of flowers to the Sultan, ® but the tulip display was probably as effective in its simplicity as the others in th^ir complexity.

Figure 48 depicts one of the most common of the guild devices, the pageant car in the form of a miniature shop. Of the approxi­ mately 110 guild displays shown in the sàmame, eighty employ some kind of wheeled structure which can be termed a pageant car. The

particular car in Figure 48 represents the shop of the fruit mer­

chants, or m ewa furussan. The device is pulled along by two men,

one of whom is wearing a half-mask, it would seem, and two other

attendants push from the other side. The car itself is gaily deco­

rated. There is at the corners a design of vertically running

tracery, and the roof is tüe. The sides of the shop are open to

reveal one of the fruit sellers and a large shelf of various bowls of

fruit. Also, there are bunches of fruit garnished with leaves hanging

from the ceiling of the shop. ..As they passed, the fruit sellers would

hand out samples to members of the crowd, and the figure of the obese

^Lebelski. 255

^ Fig. 48. —Guild Pageantry. Dispîaÿ bf theTFruit Merchants. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 293. 256

man at the lower right corner of the shop is doubtless intended to

be a humorous .touch.

Whereas the pageant of the fruit-sellers only involved the

simple display of their wares, the scene shown in Figure 49 illus­ trates the practice of the guilds to act out their labors as part of the show. In this miniature, the guild of the butchers present their display. The pageant car represents a butcher shop with

hanging meat and a scales. In the shop is a counter, and a

chopping block with an axe. Two butchers with aprons stand

inside the shop, one with a knife and the other with a large cleaver.

Just in front of the shop two butchers with small knives in their

hands stand back while a hamstrung goat with a cut throat bleeds to

death. ]h the foreground is another goat, presumably waiting also

to be killed and slaughtered by the butchers, or kasaban. These

are doubtless the "sluttish butchers" whose displays so displeased

the western writer Baudier, who indicates that the butchers passed

out the flesh to the people. Presumably they reserved their finest

cuts and carcasses as gifts for the Sultan.

Figure 50 shows another guild display in which the artisans act

out their labors as they proceed across the square. The pageant-

car, drawn by a brace of oxen, represents a workshop of the

haddadan. or metal-workers. In the shop is a small forge with two

large bellows. Around the forge, four of the metal-workers pound 257

Fig. 49. —Guild Pageantry. Display of the Butchers. SürnaTnp of Murad m OSUTC Füm no. 1625, &ame 147. 258

Fig. 50. —Gml . Display of the Metal-Workers Surname of Murad HE. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 152. 259 away at bars of hot metal laid on miniature anvils. In the lower right corner of the workshop, a. little boy apprentices the craft, using a very tiny anvil. There were a number of displays by different groups of metal-workers at the festival, some of whom were Gypsies. Most of the Gypsy artisans were smiths or tinkers, just as in Europe. ^

The metal-workers in Figure 50, however, seem to be Turks, with their white turbans.

The appearance of the pageant car shown in Figure 51 is quite different from that of the tüe-roofed shops used by the fruit-sellers, . butchers, and metal-workers. There is no roof or any suggestion of an interior scene. This is the pageant car of the potters, or comlekcüer. On the flat wagon floor is mounted a fairly large, smoking kiln, and attached to the kUn structure is a sort of assembly line arrangement used by three of the potters. At the right end of the wagon, one man operates a pottery wheel, shaping an earthenware pot as he moves the wheel with his foot. To the left, another man seems to be preparing the shaped pots for firing, and at the left end of the wagon is an apprentice who might either be tending the fire or placing pottery into the kün. On the far side of the wagon floor stands a row of the finished products, probably ready for presentation to the Sultan.

In this display, the entire cycle of the potters' manufacturing is

9See Haunolth, p. 491. 260

Fig. 51.--GuüdPàgeantry. Display of the Potters. Surname of Murad lEL OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 201. 261 demonstrated, all on one small wagon and with but three workers involved in the process.

One of the most elaborate pageant cars shown at the festival is depicted in Figure 52. This is the display of the bath-keepers, or hamamivan. The pageant represents an entire Turkish bath, with six decorated domes for a roof. The large size of the structure is indicated by the fact that it is pulled by four large oxen. Inside, on either side of the entrance archway, are two bathing rooms with two bathers, and the one on the right seems to be sprinkling himself with water. Outside the bathing rooms, other bathers wait their turns in various stages of undress. The man standing by the center door has a large cloak around his shoulders, indicating that he is on the street outside the bath just about to enter. It is interesting to note that the scenic convention employed here is quite similar to that of the medi­ eval and Elizabethan theatre. The man and boy in front of the left bathing room are supposed to be inside the bath, even though they are a couple of steps downstage of the turbaned man who stands "outside. "

The location of the figures is for the purposes of the representation not determined by the actual position of the figures but by the scenic units with which they are associated. As for the dervis at the left, he seems to be waiting in an anteroom or corridor. The entire structure seems to be finished in great detail and accuracy; the floor of the bathing-rooms is made to simulate tüe, and at various places about the 262

DfijfSy of the Bath-Keepers, Surname of Murad OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 165, 268 bath) there are towels hanging. It is possible that this pageant is a model of some actual bath in Istanbul.

Another fairly elaborate pageant car is shown in Figure 53; it is elaborate not for the richness of its decor but for the relative complexity of its mechanical arrangement. This is the display of the millers, or de^irmenciler. and once again we see a quite realistic demonstration of the labors of a guild by means of a device designed especially to provide the most vivid possible demonstration of the particular form of work involved. The de&irmenci pageant car consists of a low, circular six-wheeled platform. As the device is pulled to the left, the blindfolded horse moves in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. As the horse moves, it turns a mill­ stone attached to a central spindle. As the millstone grinds around over the center drum, two of the millers are pushing the grain under the stone with large paddles. In the foreground to the right, another miller stands ready with a wooden paddle, while to the far left a man acting out the part of a customer is shown bearing a sack of grain to the mül. Again a complete cycle or process seems to be displayed rather than just a product or one step of the production.

One particularly lively guild display was that of the jisherman, or sawadani mah. Lebelski speaks of "the Fishermen with theyr nettes, and all other fishing tooles and instrumentes, being in lyttle small Cockeboate, from which they fished, the lyttle small 264

Fig. 53.—Guild Pageantry. Display of the Millers. Surname of Murad m . OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 62. ------265 fishes. "10 The procession of the fishermen, shown in Figure 54, has two boats, either of which could be considered to be "Cockboates, " because of their small size. The boat in the left-hand painting has both oars and a billowing sail, and the mast and prow are decorated with pennants. The boat is on wheels and is pulled along by two men by means of lines attached to the stern. In the boat, one of the fisher­ men pretends to be rowing, while another standing to the left of the mast playfully catches a passing in his net. In the right-hand painting, a rov/boat is pulled along; inside, one fisherman pretends to man the oai-s, while the other holds lines attached to four large fish.

There is a playful and gently comic quality to these paintings which was perhaps projected also by the fishermen's display itself. In the left-hand painting, the fishermen interfere with the progress of a passer-by, while in the right-hand painting it is a passer-by who is interfering with the progress of the fishing boat,

A final, particularly charming vignette from the Surname minia­ tures is shown in Figure 55. This is the display of the street-sweepers, or sokak supurculer. Their demonstration is surpassingly simple, and perfectly appropriate to their quite humble social position. The sweepers have no pageant car or any kind of special device, but simply perform their ordinary duties with their usual tools--large brooms and

lOLebelski. Fig. 54. —Guild Pageantry. Display of the Fishermen. Surname of Murad HL OSUTC CC CO Film no. 1625, frame 281. CO 267

Fig. bbüFGuild Pâgéan! pers. Surname of Murad m. OSUTC Film no. 1625, frame 167. 268 water-bags. In the painting, four sweepers wield their brooms while two others sprinkle the dusty ground with water. It is quite possible that the simplicity of this display was a matter of deliberate choice; there were twenty large water wagons which swept down the hippo­ drome floor during the festivities, and presumably the guild of the sweepers could have used one of the water wagons had they desired.

At any rate, an explanation for the absence of any special device here is again the principle shown by so many of the guilds, to make the most effective demonstration in the most vivid and appropriate man­ ner. One other principle reflected in the Ottoman guild pageantry is also clearly implicit in Figure 55. The processions of the guilds provided the opportunity for all classes of Ottoman society to partici­ pate in one official function sponsored by the imperial court, so that even the poorest of the workers could have a sense of belonging and recognition. Thus the miniature showing the humble laborers being received before the mightiest potentate of the East reveals the extent to which the festivities embraced and recognized the Ottoman citizens of every estate, and symbolized the social cohesion and mutual respect which made Ottoman Turkey, for its day, a state with an appreciable degree of democratic spirit.

llFugger, p. 65. CHAPTER Vnt

THE S m - i - HIMAYIM OF MURAD HI:

THE CONCLUSION OF THE FESTIVAL

The Circumcision of Mehmed Sultan

The last of the guild processions took place on the afternoon of

June sixth, and during the evening of June seventh the solemn cere­ mony of circumcision was performed. The much anticipated joyous event, the ostensible raison d'etre of the entire fifty days and nights of celebration, had been foreshadowed during the previous weeks of the festival not only by the various ceremonies and pageants symbolic of virile force and fecundity, but also by an astounding number of actual circumcisions, performed both on Turkish boys and on

Christians of all ages who wished to convert to Islam. A special place was set aside in the courtyard of the palace of Ibrahim-pasa for the purpose, and anyone wishing to be circumcised had only to come before the gate and lift his finger, to be admitted and taken inside for an immediate operation. It is estimated that over 150

269 270

Christians per day, mostly Greeks and , underwent the operation and became Muslims. ^

On the day of the circumcision of Mehmed Sultan there was especially lavish celebration. In the morning a great horse race was held between Istanbul and Edirne. This seems to have been the only major event of the festival which took place outside the hippo­

drome. The Sultan, however, remained in his kiosk and greeted the victors when they made their splendid entry into the square. In the

afternoon, the Sultan and his son threw an exceptionally large amount of money and silver bowls down from the imperial kiosk, and the crush below was such that several people were badly injured and had to be carried of£. ^

That evening, in a small room in the palace of Ibrahim-pasa. prince Mehmed was circumcised. The operation was performed by the vizir Mehmed-pasa. who received for this the sum of 8,000

ducats, a token of appreciation from the Sultan and the Sultana Valide. the Sultan's mother. Haunolth reports that "the cut-off foreskin was

sent to the mother of the young prince, on a golden bowl, and the

cutting-knife, still bloody, was sent to his grandmother. When the

ceremony was over, the joyous news was proclaimed to the people in

haunolth, p. 476.

% id .. p. 509. % id. 271 the hippodrome, and this set off an unprecedented cry of exultation from the crowd, and the cheers evidently continued for hours, mingling with the incessant fanfares of the musicians who had massed on the square. After the ceremony, Sultan Murad came back to his kiosk and threw down yet another great quantity of coins and silver bowls. ^ The whole rest of the night was given over to a mammoth fireworks exhibition. It was on this night that the fall of Constantinople was represented in fireworks, and there was also a splendid representation of the storming of Damascus. ^

The Last Days of the Festivities

The circumcision of Mehmed Sultan was the climax of the entire festival, and although the denouement was not abrupt, it was a sad and shabby thing compared to the vigorous celebration and grand pomp which had gone before. Practically all the major cere­ monies and spectacular entertainments had taken place before the circumcision, and there was very little shown on the square after­ ward which was not repetitious in one way or the other. The only major spectacle presented in the last days of the festival was a mock battle representing the great victory of the Turks over the Persians at , and the evidence seems to indicate that this show had been

4 Le Vigne de Per a, p. 175.

^Haunolth, p. 510. 272 rather hastily thrown together only after some had news from the

Persian front had been received at the Ottoman court. Some few

days before the mock battle, the news of the Persian victory had so

angered Sultan Murad that he had the magnificent Persian pavilion torn down and the ambassador seized, ®

The primary reason for the absence of any well-planned spec­ tacles after the seventh of July was probably not poor planning by the

officials in charge of the festival, but the bad judgment of Murad himself. The festivities had been planned to run for forty days and

forty nights, but on the fortieth night, the Sultan announced that the

celebration would be extended for ten more days. This announce­

ment probably came as a surprise to the officials in charge, for not

only had they not reserved any major ceremonies or entertainments,

but they had almost run out of food. First the feeding of the populace was stopped, and then the banqueting of dignitaries. When the ban­

queting was discontinued, the dignitaries stopped coming to the

festivities, and when the dignitaries were no longer there to reward

the entertainers, the entertainers began to stay home, and the whole

pace of the festivities started to drop off rapidly. ®

®Le Vigne de Per a, p. 176.

'^IbicL

^Haunolth, p. 510. 273

Murad's decision to prolong the festivities beyond the appointed

forty days and nights was no mere whim. One reason may have been to throw dust in the eyes of his subjects to counteract the effect of

the bad news from Persia, but the evidence seems to show that the

main reason was to put off a showdown with the janissaries, who were uneasy because they had not been given their traditional gift

for serving at the festival. They were, in fact, demanding a raise to the sum of 1,000 akceler per man per day, ^ and they strongly

suspected that Murad had squandered so much money by throwing

largesse to the people that he would not be able to pay them the whole amount. They were right, and Murad knew trouble was

ahead.

The angry restlessness of the janissaries was caused not only

by the prospect of their not being paid, but also by their many days

of close proximity to the sipahiler. or feudal cavalrymen. There

was no love lost between the janissaries and the sipahiler. and by

the last week of the festival the friction was serious. Finally, the

restrained enmity of both sides could be held back no longer, and a

bloody clash ensued. The battle started with an incident in a tavern

on July eighteenthrin which a janissary killed a sipahi with a cudgel.

A skirmish developed in the street outside the tavern; the sipahiler

^Le Vigne de Fera, p. 176. 274 had the best of the fight, and they were about to put several janissaries to death, when by an odd coincidence one of the chief mutes of the imperial court happened upon the scene. He somehow indicated to the sipahiler that they should not kill the janissaries_right away, but go before the Sultan with their complaint. This the sipahiler did.

Interrupting the festivities they came galloping into the square dragging behind them the captive janissaries. They also carried in their dead comrade and placed him on the ground in front of the

Sultan's kiosk.

At this point, a full-scale battle broke out. The 500 janis­ saries who had been policing the festival site rushed to help their captive fellows, and the rest of the sipahiler then attacked the janissaries. The hippodrome was filled with the struggle. Since most of the combatants on both sides had no deadly weapons with them at the time, they began to tear off planks and posts from the various pavilions, and to use these as weapons. The fact that they had only their improvised clubs to fight with prevented the battle from turning into a real blood-bath; as it was, some fifteen were killed, and the battle would have escalated had it not been for the intervention of the Grand Vizir and the of Greece, who both actually had to go in among the fighters to put an end to the affair.

When the fight was over, Sultan Murad expressed his dis­ pleasure over the disgraceful incident by summarily dismissing the 275

A^a of the janissaries. This punishment evidently pleased the

sipahiler who had alleged that the janissaries had started the trouble,

Sultan Murad further showed his displeasure with the janissaries by

deciding that their bad behaviour had cost them their usual reward

at the end of the festival. This was very convenient for the Sultan,

and although none of the sources directly indicate that Murad was behind the outbreak, it seems quite possible that Murad had, in fact,

engineered the whole thing. The action of the court mute seems to

indicate some measure of connivance was involved.

Concluding Ceremonies

Although Murad had managed to win out over the janissaries,

his extension of the festival to fifty days had cost fifteen lives and

had ruined the conclusion of the celebration. The audience had

scattered during the battle, and members of the populace returned

afterward mainly to ransack the deserted pavilions for lumber.

The noble delegations had already withdrawn, and on the nineteenth

of July the sultanalar in their covered cars were escorted back to

the old seraglio.

^%/Eost of the western accounts gleefully report the outbreak in the hippodrome, but the most detailed account is that of von Haunolth, p. 511.

^^Le Vigne de Per a, p. 177. 276

The concluding ceremonies of the sur-i-hümayun took place on the twenty-first of July, in the early evening. In these ceremonies, the Sultan extended his formal thanks to those functionaries who had attended to the practical work involved in supervising the festival activity in the hippodrome. This included the janissaries, the various ushers, and the tulumcilar. The janissaries, in disgrace, received only a token gift from the Sultan, but the others were better paid, from what remained in the imperial treasury. There was a final review of all the attendants, who ranged themselves in forma­ tion across the square before they were formally thanked and

discharged by the Sultan.

Badly spoiled as the conclusion of the festival had been, the

final event was the most ignominious of all. In order to avoid being

confronted by the still-rebellious janissaries on his way back to the

imperial seraglio, Sultan Murad cancelled the imperial alay which

had been planned, and, together with his son and a small bodyguard,

sneaked furtively back to his palace on the morning of July twenty-

second, before dawn. 12 Thus the sur-i-humavun of Murad HE,

which had begun with such vigor and magnificence, faded off to

nothing at the end, through Sultanic profligacy and internal strife.

l.^Haunolth, p. 512. CHAPTER IX

CONCLHBION

The Theatrical Significance of the Sur-i-Hiimayun of Murad HE

Despite its dismal conclusion, the sur-i-hum&un of Murad HI must be regarded as a monumental event in the theatrical history of the Islamic Middle East. The most lengthy and extravagant festival in the history of the Ottoman empire, Murad's vast senlik encom­ passed almost every form of theatrical entertainment known to the

Muslim world and also brought to the shores of the Bosphorus forms of theatrical expression which had been developed in the aristocratic festivals of renaissance Europe. The sur-i-humayun stood as a connecting link, or at least as a meeting place between the ancient, somewhat primitive theatrical traditions of the East and the more sophisticated pageantry of the West.

The teeming variety of native popular entertainments which were seen in the hippodrome evinces the fact that while the Ottoman empire had no "theatre" in the western sense of performed, serious dramatic art, it nonetheless had a vigorous tradition of professional entertainment which can be considered theatrical though not always

277 278 dramatic. The Islamic Middle East never developed a native tradi­ tion of serious dramatic art. In the Mediterranean area, the stage as a medium of serious artistic expression had declined in Roman times, and by the seventh century there remained only the mimes to carry on something of the dramatic tradition of the classical world.

In the West, the development of the church drama and the renais­ sance discovery of the ancient world permitted dramatic art to regain its former place of dignity and high artistic accomplishment. But this revival did not take place in the Middle East. The anti-theatrical strictures of Orthodox Islam prevented the development of dramatic art. Even in the courts of the aristocracy, where learning and elegant poetry flourished, the character of the performing arts remained on a rudimentary, popular, and somewhat scurrilous level.

But among the profusion of simple entertainments which the

Muslim world had inherited from the ancient Near East--the erotic dancers, the jugglers, conjurers, animal trainers and the like— there remained a definite element of dramatic representation. Just

as in the West during the Dark Ages the mimes managed to survive

despite the hostility of the official religious establishment, so the

eastern mimic actors and clowns kept alive the spark of drama—in the Byzantine empire, in Armenia, and in the Muslim areas of the

Middle East. The introduction of the shadow theatre from the Far 279

East in the eleventh or twelfth century provided a new medium for dramatic performances, and further stimulated the popularity of dramatic representations throughout the Middle East. But though the shadow theatre with its magical scenic effects captured a larger audience than did the mimic farces, the two kinds of theatre coexisted and in fact mutually influenced one another. Festivities such as the sur-i-hum^yun of Murad HI provided the opportunity for this mutual influence. The shadow theatre as a theatrical medium had come from the Far East, but in terms of content, it was nearly identical to the mimic farces of the Mediterranean area. Both the

Ottoman shadow-plays and farces showed a close similarity to the mimes of the classical world in their connection with erotic dancers and tumblers, their buffoonish costumes, their use of stock charac­ ters, their use of improvisation, and their irreverent parody and ribaldry.

The s w -i-hümayun brought together before one audience mimic actors and puppet showmen from the imperial court, from the

Ottoman provinces as far away as Cairo. The textual and pictorial records of the sur-i-humavun provide invaluable evidence for the study of the eastern mime. The accounts in fact provide practically the only evidence of the existence of an Arab mime in the sixteenth century. Records of mime performances have almost always been 280 rather scanty; the Byzantine mimes existed for several hundred years, but the only evidence of their existence comes from the Kiev frescoes and a few passing textual references. Had it not been for the inclusion of the mimic entertainments in the sûr-i-hümàyun of

Murad HI and other well recorded Ottoman festivals, our knowledge of the post Byzantine eastern mimes would be just as slight and unsatisfactory. Thanks to the accounts of the snr-i-humûyun, and to Osman's paintings in particular, we are able to recognize the close similarity between the Ottoman mimes of the sixteenth century and their Byzantine ancestors. The sùr-1-hümâyun of Murad is significant not only for the study of the native theatre of Ottoman

Turkey, but also as an important point of departure for speculation and further research on the eastern mime in general.

The sm -i-humayun encompassed every possible native form of theatrical entertainment, but it is also significant in that it borrowed from the theatrical traditions of the Christian courts of the West.

With its erotic dances, whirling dervisler, shadow shows and gro­ tesque fakirs, the festival represented traditions which extended eastward as far as India and even China; but in other respects, it is

apparent that the senlik of 1582 was the easternmost example of the renaissance tradition of sumptuous festivals which flourished through­ out western Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 281

With its processional pageantry and spectacular entertainments, its lavish pavilions for distinguished spectators, its noble jousts and banquets, the sûr-i-hümâyun of Murad m was infused with the spirit of the splendi.d tournaments and trionfi of the West.

Like some of the native Ottoman entertainments, the western forms of theatrical expression which manifested themselves at the sur-i-humayun can be considered theatrical but not necessarily dramaticT Religious dramas and plays written on classical models were often included in the renaissance festivals, but these elements of the western festivities did not find their way to Istanbul. Rather, the renaissance influences on the senlik of 1582 lay in the area of pageantry and quasi-dramatic spectacular entertainments. Although some of the Ottoman pageant devices, such as the nakUlar and the ceremonial gardens, were undoubtedly part of a very old native tradition, many other spectacular devices displayed at the sur-i- hümâyun had been known m the West long before their appearance

in the Ott. nan festivities.

The Biblical pageant in the form of a mountain of fireworks was probably the most obviously western device introduced into the

festival, but there were also a number of other fireworks and pup­

petry devices shown in the hippodrome which seem definitely to

have been of European origin. The device of a many-headed. 282 fire-breathing dragon, for example, had been developed in Italy in the late Middle Ages, and was a common festival device there.

The somewhat awkward and misshapen version of the dragon device which was exhibited at the sûr-i-hümayun may well have been a very rough copy of an Italian original. The various sea-monsters used in the Jewish masquerade seem also to have been copies of western pageant devices. The Ottoman guild pageantry was in many ways quite different from that of the West, but the Surname paintings clearly show some use of scenic conventions which had been firmly established in western pageantry during the previous two centuries.

Other features of the spectacular entertainments at the festival seem to reflect more or less direct western influence. The two pantomimic spectacles, the St. George play and the mythological pantomime, dealt with western subject matter and were performed by

Christian slaves. These shows can be considered importations from the world of renaissance pageantry and court spectacle. The effete and allegorical mock battles of the French and Italian festivals may have differed considerably in tone and effect from their Ottoman counterparts, but the basic mode of theatrical expression was the same, and the possibility of western influence here cannot be excluded. 283

In all the evidence seems to indicate that as far as pageantry and scenic spectacle are concerned, the s ^ -i-hüm^yun of Murad

HE was something of a copy of a European festival. The possible reasons for this conscious imitation are not difficult to discern.

There had for some time been considerable rivalry among the

European courts in matters of festivity, and Murad was perhaps desirous of putting to shame his western counterparts with a festival which employed not only the decor and the entertainments of the East, but of the West as well. In this, the Sultan was no doubt encouraged by Ottoman nobles who had attended western festivities, and by his Venetian wife, the sultana Safiye. But __ whatever the immediate motives were, there had long been a tendency at the Ottoman court to partake of the art and culture of the West, and the sur-i-humavun of Murad IE was a tangible example of this trend toward cultural borrowing. The senlik of 1582 was something of a melange, a rough and clumsy admixture of eastern and western traditions; Sultan Murad obviously had not the taste or cultured renaissance outlook of or Suleiman the Magnificent. But his great festival at least managed in some ways to reflect the efforts of those earlier Sultans to bring something of the civilization of the renaissance to the Ottoman empire. 284

Fijrther Research Possibilities

The possibilities for further research in the area of Ottoman pageantry and popular entertainment are quite extensive. The fore­ going study of the sim -i-humlvun of Murad m represents only a

small first step, an introduction to a subject which still remains largely unexplored by modern researchers. Much basic work in the bibliography and iconography of the Ottoman festivities has

already been done by Metin And, but a great deal of this fundamental groundwork remains to be re-examined and augmented. There are numerous documents pertaining to the pageantry and entertainments

of the Ottoman empire in various libraries in Europe and the Middle

East which have never received the attention of western scholars in

the field of theatre history, and which would richly repay careful

study. In the Ottoman archives in Istanbul, there remain literally tons of unexamined documents, and some of these might be of

importance to the study of Ottoman pageantry and entertainment.

But even with the documents already listed and collated by

Metin And in Kirk Gun Kirk Gece and other publications, 1 much

significant research can be accomplished. The sûr-i-hümâvun of

Murad HI is probably the best documented single Ottoman senlik,

but there are at least six or seven other senliker which are documented

^See supra. , pp. 2-6. 285 fully enough to warrant separate, detailed studies. Taken together, these separate studies would constitute the basis for a thorough and systematic history of the Ottoman festivities from the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries, and such an undertaking would not only shed light on the theatrical history of the Islamic Middle East, but also might add to our knowledge of western pageantry and popular theatre as well. The foregoing study of the senlik of 1582 has indicated a certain amount of western influence upon Ottoman pageantry, and more detailed studies, particularly of earlier festivities, could provide new evidence relating to the eastward spread of western guild pageantry, allegorical devices and scenic conventions. It is even possible that certain Ottoman influences on western pageantry might be discovered.

Perhaps the most fascinating research possibility in the fur­ ther study of Ottoman festivals has to do with the whole subject of the eastern mime and its influence. Studies on this topic were made in the early part of this century by Hermann Reich and others, and hypotheses were put forth suggesting the survival of the classical mime in the Middle East, and the possible influence of this eastern mime on the development of the commedia dell'arte. At that time, the rich documents of the Ottoman archives were totally unknown.

Today, with new evidence coming to light on the Ottoman mimes, the 286

Turkish folk plays and the Armenian mimes of the Middle Ages, it

is perhaps time for a complete reassessment of the previous theories. Further study of the Ottoman popular entertainments might not only bring out a clearer picture of the eastern mimes as they flourished in the Middle East, but also lead to evidence

indicating mutual influences between the mimic entertainments of the Middle East and those of the West. Whether or not such further research would lead to important new discoveries, however, it seems clear that the continued study of the Ottoman festival entertainments should lead to significant contributions to knowledge in the field of theatre history. BIBLIOGRAPHY

287 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ottoman Manuscripts

Lokman B. Huseyn Al-'Ashuri. HE Murat S^namesi. Istanbul, ça. 1583. Topkapi Sarayi Kitapli^i, No. 1344. (OSUTC Film No. 1625. )

8nrname-i-Humlyun. Istanbul, ça. 1583. Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, No. 1019. (OSXJTC Film No. 1625. )

Mustafa B. Ahmed (Gelibolulu Ali). Camiul-Hubur der Mecalis-i Snr. Istanbul, ça. 1583. Topkapi Sarayi Ba^dat K5sû, No. 203.

Seyyid Huseyn Vehbi. Surname-i-Vehbi. Istanbul, ça. 1720. Topkapi Sarayi Kitapli^i, No. 3593.

Topkapi Sarayi Arsivi. Palace documents pertaining to the Sur-i- Hümâyun of Murad III. Istanbul, ca. 1582. Topkapi Sarayi Arçivi, Nos. D. 9715, D. 10015, D. 10022.

Primary Accounts in Western Languages

Anon. Discours des Triomphes. Magnificences, et Allearesses qui ont este faictes a la Circoncision du Sultan Mehemet. Fils du Sultan Amurabh. Grand Empereur des Turcs. Paris: Jean Patrasson, 1583.

Anon. Fugger News-letter of August, 1582. Translated by Pauline de Chary and published in Victor von Klarwill (ed. ). The Fugqer News- Letters . . . during the Years 1568- 1605. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1925, pp. 63-72.

288 289 Anon. Particular Beschrevbmcf der Ordnmq und Herrlichkevt so m dam Fast der Beschnevdxmq des Sultan Machmet vetziqen Turckischen Kaysers Sultan Amuraths Son zu Constantinopel im 1582. Jar 1st qehalten den andern Jm ii anqefanqen und den 26. Julil voUende worden. Augsburg: Michael Manger, 1583.

Haunolth, Nicholas von. Particular Verzeichnuzs mit was Geremonien Gene ana unnd Pracht das Fast der Beschneidunq dezs ietzt reaierenden Turckischen Kevsers Sultan Murath dlzs Namens dezs dritten u. Sohns Sultan Mehemet qenannt Welches von andern Junii bizs auf den 21. Julii dezs 1582. J ahrs qewehret unnd contiriuiert hat zu. Constantinopel celebriert und qehalten worden. Published in Johannes Lewenklaw, Neuwe Cronica Türckisher Nation. Franckfurt am Mayn: iVndras Wechels und Johan Aiibri, 1950, pp. 468- 515.

Lebelski, George. A True Description of ^ Magnifie all Tryumphes and Pastimes, represented at Constantinople, at the solemnizing of the Circumcision of the Soldan Mauhmet. the sonne of Amurath. the thyrd of that name, in the yeare of our Lor de God 1582. in the Monethes of Male and June. Published in Francois de BlUerberg, Most Rare and Strange Discourses of Amurathe. the Turkish Emperor that now is. London: for Thomas Hackett, 1585. (No pagination. )

Le Vigne de Para. Letter from Constantinople, dated 21 July, 1582, to the English Court. Published in Great Britain Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers. Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth. May-December, 1582. Ed. Arthur John Butler. London: Mackie and Co., Ltd., 1909, pp. 170-78.

Palerne, Jean. Peregrinations du S. Jean Palem e. Foresien. Secretaire de Francois de Valois Due d'Anjou, d'Alencon. . . . Ensemble un Bref discours des Triomphes et Magnificences faictes a Constantinople en la solennité de la circoncision de Mahomet füs de Sultan Amurath m de ce nom Empereur des Turcs. Lyon: Jean PiLlehotte, 1606, pp. 442-88. 290

Vigenere, Blaise de. Les Illustrations de Blaise de Viqenere Bourbonnois, sur L'Histoire de Chalcondiie Athénien de la decadence de L'Empire Grec. & Establissement de celuv des Turcs. Published in Laonicus Chalkokondyles, L'Histoire de la Decadence de L'Empire Grec et Establissement de Celuv des Turcs. De la Traduction de B. de Vigenere Bourbonnois. Paris: Claude Sonnius, 1632, pp. 279-89.

Secondary Accounts

Baudier, Michel. The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand Seigneurs. London: Richard Meighan, 1635, pp. 76-92.

Daniçmend, Ismail Hami. Izahli Osmanli Tarihi Kronolojisi. Istanbul: Turkiye Yayinevi Tarih Serisi, 1961. Vol. HE, pp. 58-60.

Hammer, Joseph de. L'Histoire de L'Empire Ottoman depuis Son ■ Origine iusqu'a Nos Jours. Paris: Bellizard, Barthes, DuFour et Lowell, 1834. Vol. VII, pp. 146-63.

Menestrier, Claude Francois. Traite des Tournois. Joustes. Carrousels ^ Autres Spectacles Publics. Lyon; Jacques Muguet, 1669, pp. 307-24.

Supplementary Sources

Books

Aidersc A. D. The Structure of the . Oxford: The Clarendon P ress, 1956.

And, Metin. A History of Theatre and Popular Entertainment in Turkey. Ankara: Forum Yayinlari, 1963-64.

______. Kirk Gun Kirk Gece. Istanbul: Tag Yayinlari, 1959.

Arnold, Thomas W. Painting in Islam. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1928. ■ 291 Artus, Thomas. Plusiers Descriptions des Accoustremens. taut des Magistrats ^ Officiers de la Porte de L'Empereur des Times que des peuples assuiectis a sm Empire. Paris: Claude Sonnius, 1632.

Aslanapa, Oktay. Turkish Arts. Translated by Herman Krieder. Revised by Sheila M. O'Callaghan. Istanbul: Do'^’an Kardeç Yayinlari, 1961.

Babinger, Eranz. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und Ihre Werke. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1927.

Babington, John. Pyrotechnia, or. a Discourse of Artificall Fireworks. London: Ralph Mab, 1635.

Bate, John. The Mysteries of Nature and Art. London: By Thomas Harper for Ralph Mab, 1635.

Baudier, Michel. The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand Seigneurs. London: Richard Meighan, 1635.

Bent, Theodore J. (ed.). Early Voyages and Travels in the Leyant. London: Halduyt Society, 1893.

Brock, Allan St. Hill. A History of Fireworks. London: George G. Harrap & Co., 1949.

Burckhardt, Jfipob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. London: The Phaidon Press, 1944.

Chalkokondyles, Laonicus. L'Histoire de la Decadence de L'Empire Grec, et Establissement de Celuy des Turcs. Translated by B. de Vigenere Bourbonnois. Paris: Claude Sonnius, 1632.

Chodzko, Aleksander. Théâtre Persian. Paris: Ernst LeRoux, E(üteur, 1878.

Creasy, Edward S. History of the Ottoman Turks. Beirut: Khayats, 1961.

Daniçmend, Ismail Hami. izahli Osmanli Tarihi Kronolojisi. Istanbul: Turkiye Yayinevi Tarih Serisi, 1961. 292 Esin, Emil. Turkish Miniature Painting. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1960.

Evliya Çelebi. A Narrative of Travels in Europe. Asia and Africa. ' Translated from the Turkish by Joseph von Hammer. London: The Oriental Translation Fund, 1834-1850.

Fisher, Sydney N. The Middle East; A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Gibb, E. J. W. A History of . London: Luzac & Company, Ltd., 1958.

Gibb, H. A. R ., and Bowen, Harold. Islamic Society and the West. London: Oxford University Press, 1950

Grunebaum, G. E. von. Muhammadan Festivals. New York: Henry Schumann, 1951.

Hammer, Joseph de. L'Histoire de L'Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine iusqu'a Nos Jours. Paris: BeUizard, Barthes, DuFour et Lowell, 1834.

Hony, H. C. A Turkish-English Dictionary. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1947.

Jacquot, Jean (ed. ). Les Fetes de la Renaissance. Paris: Centre National pour Recherche Scientifique, 1956.

J al al. As ad . Constantinople de Bvzance a Stamboul. Paris: Librairie Renouard, 1909.

Janin, R. Constantinople Byzantine. Paris; Institut Français d'Etudes Byzantines, 1950.

Klarwill, Victor von (ed. ). The Fugger News- Letters . . . during the Years 1568- 1605. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1925.

Lamb, Harold. Suleiman the Magnificent. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1951.

Landau, Jacob M. Studies m ^ Arab Theatre and Cinema. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958. 293

Lane, Edward William. An Aecomt of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. London: Ward, Lock & Bowden, Limited, n. d.

_. Arabian Society in the Middle Acres. London: Chatto andWindus, 1883.

Lewenklaw, Johannes. Neuwe Cronica Türckischer Nation. Franckfurt am Mayn, 1590.

Magne, Emil. Les Fetes en Europe au XVII Siecle. Paris: Rombali Editeur, n. d.

Magre, Maurice, and Lyonnet, Henry. Les Fetes en Orient et dans L'Antiquite. Paris: Martin-DuPuis, 1929.

Martinovitch, Nicholas N. The Turkish Theatre. New York: Theatre Arts, Inc., 1933.

Menestrier, Claude Francois. Traite des Tournois. Joustes. Carrousels et Autres Spectacles Publics. Lyon: Jacques Muguet, 1669.

Miller, Barnette. Beyond the . New Haven: Yale Uiiversity Press, 1931.

Moran, Ahmed Vahid. Turkce — ihcfilizce Sozlilk. Istanbul: Turkish Ministry of Public Instruction, 1945.

Nagler, Alois M. Theatre Festivals of ^ Medici. New Haven and London: Yale l&iiversity Press, 1964.

NicoU, Allardyce. Masks. Mimes and Miracles. London: George G. Harrap & Company, Limited, 1931.

North, Roger. The Lives of üie Right Hon. Francis North , . . the Hon. Sir Dudley North . . . and the Hon. and Rev. Dr. John North. . . London: H. Colburn, 1826.

Ohsson, Constantine Mour adage a d'. Tableau General de L'Empire Othoman. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1788-1824. 294 Pallis, Alexander. In the Days of the Janissaries. London: Hutchison & Co., 1951.

Par doe, Julia. The City of the Sultans. London: Henry Colburn, 1837.

Redhouse, J. W. An English and Turkish Dictionary. London: W. M. Watts, n. d.

Reich, Herman. Der Mimus. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1903.

Ritter, Hellmut. Karacroz. Turkische Schattenspiele. Weisbaden: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, 1953.

Rosenthal, Franz. Humor in Early Islam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1956.

Rycaut, Paul. The History of the Turkish Empire from the Year 1623 to the Year 1677. London: by J. M. for John Starkey, 1680.

_. The Present State of the Ottoman Empire. London: John Starkey, 1670.

Sandys, George. A Relation of a Journey begun An; Dom: 1610. London: n. n ., 1632.

Stern, Bernhard. Medizin. Auberalaube und Geschlechtsleben in der Turkei. Berlin: Verlag von H. Barsdorf, 1903.

Taeschner, Franz. Alt-Stambuler Hof- und-Volksleben: Bin Türkisches Miniaturenalbum aus den 17. Jahrhundert. Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz LeFaire, 1925.

Tomlin, E. W. F. Life in Modern Turkey. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1946.

Tott, Francois de. Memoirs of Baron de Tott. London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson, 1785.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Turkey; Ancient Miniatures. Introduction by M. Ç. ïpçiro^lu and S. Eyubo^lu. New York: The New York Graphic Society, 1961. 295 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Turkish Miniatures. Introduction by Richard Ettinghausen. New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1965.

Welsford, Enid. The Fool: His Social and Literary History. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1935.

Articles and Periodicals

And, Metin. "The Dances of Anatolian Turkey, " Dance Perspectives. No. 3 (Summer, 1959), pp. 1-76.

_. "1582 ^enli^i Uzerine Ônemli Bir Beige, " Forum. XIH No. 166 (March 1, 1961), 22.

. "Eski Osmanli Çenlikleri Uzerine Üç Italyan Kaynaj^i, " Forum. XIV, No. 184 (December 1, 1961), 14-16.

_. "Gene 1582 Çenli^i Uzerine, " Forum. XIH, No. 168 (April 1, 1961), 26.

_. "Turchia. " Enciclopedia dello Spettacolo. Vol. IX (1962), cols. 1167-1179.

_. "Turkish Dances, " Dance Magazine. XXXH, No. 8 (August, 1958), 54-63.

Ansari, Mohd. Azhar. "Amusement and Games of the Great Mughals. " Islamic Culture. XXXV, No. 1 (January, 1961), 21-31.

^ "Court Ceremonies of the Great Mughals, " Islamic Culture. XXXV, No. 3 (July, 1961), 183-97.

Bombaci, Alessio. "On Ancient Turkish Dramatic Performances, " Aspects of Altaic Civilization. Ural-Altaic Series, XXm (1963), 87-117.

"Rappresentazioni Drammatiche di Anatolia, " Oriens. XVI (1963). .171-93. 296

Freshfield, E. H. "Some Sketches Made in Istanbul in 1573, " Byzantinische■ Zeitschrift. XXX (1929), 519-22.

Kramers, J. H. "Murad HE, " Encyclopaedia of Islam. 11(1934) 730-31.

Mar tinovitch, Nicholas N. "Turkish Theatre—The Missing Link, " The Moslem World (January, 1944), 54-55.

Massignon, Louis. "Sinf. " Encyclopaedia of Islam. HI (1934), 436—37.

Mulholland, John. "Eastern Magic, " Theatre Arts Monthly, XIV, No. 3 (March,- 1930), 211-17. •

Siyavusgil, Sabri Esat. "The Karacroz. " La Turchie Kemaliste. No. 30 (April, 1939), 36-46.

Tecer, Ahmed Kutsi. "Alay, Çenlik, Dü^ün, " Istanbul, HI, No. 3 (May, 1955), 17-26.

Ulucay, Cagatay. "Istanbul"daXVm ve XIX Asirlarda Sultanlarin Doi^umlarinda Yapüan Tbrenler ve §enliklere Dair, " Istanbul Enstitüsù Mecmuasi. IV (1958), 205-11.